Mike Anthony says: The truth of this is proven, beyond any statistical shadow of a doubt, by the fact that no "ecology" movements ever arose in either the Soviet Union or Red China. I wonder why not?


Jenny Genser replies: The environmental movement is a form of protest movement. Protest movements thrive in democracies, where freedom of speech is tolerated. They don't thrive in totalitarian regimes, such as the USSR or the PRC (People's Republic of China). Duh!

Anthony wrote:
"First off Eric, the parallels between Austria and South Vietnam are almost surreal: In both cases, a
substantial percentage of the population actually favored becoming a part of the country that
invaded them, and "fifth columns" endeavoring to accomplish just that were active for years prior to
the actual invasion. And getting a bit off the subject, what is your view of the holocaust that the Reds
in Vietnam are presently perpetrating against the Montagnards? It is estimated that if nothing is
done, the Montagnards will be completely wiped out by 2005.

Don't know who Montagnards are; are they named after those of the French Revolution?

You can find parallels; the fact remains that south Vietnam was never a country, only a temporary zone. The USA was the "invader" not "North Vietnam"

Second, are you sure you really admire William Randolph Hearst and Douglas MacArthur?...
Whether I admire them is irrelevant; the fact I was pointing to is that they shaped the post-war world; the GIs were only the soldiers. I do admire MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan, flawed though it may have been.

As far as the "environment" goes - I guess it was just a coincidence that the date chosen for Earth
Day just happens to be Lenin's birthday as well. Right from Day One, the "ecology" movement was
a Communist plot designed to retard industrial production in the West so that the Communist bloc
could gain ground. The truth of this is proven, beyond any statistical shadow of a doubt, by the fact
that no "ecology" movements ever arose in either the Soviet Union or Red China. I wonder why
not? And who wants to take "credit" for a movement whose "blessings" include two completely
avoidable energy shortages in the 1970s and today's "rolling blackout" situation in California?

Wrong on all counts, Anthony. The shortage is caused by high price gouging, causing the utilities not to be able to buy power; in turn caused by right-wing economics in the form of deregulation. If we had moved to renewables as the ecology movement proposes, energy would be much cheaper and more available. More gas-powered plants will only lead to more blackouts because of shortages in this resource. Ecology and economy go together, and environmentalism improves production by imrpoving efficiency.

The "truth" of your assertion is ridiculous. No movements at all were allowed to arise in totalitarian nations.

Right-wing anti-'60s reaction dominates Boomers today?...

I think so, given their control of Congress and the presidency.

And as for your parting shot at the
"corporate monoculture" - would you rather have a government-spawned Big Brother instead?

Why is your vision so limited that you see only these two possibilities? The Green Movement is the Third Way.

For your information, Eric, the Montagnards are an ethnic group found in the more mountainous regions of Vietnam - hence the name. Their native language is more similar to Hmong than Vietnamese, and most of them became Christians under French rule. They supported South Vietnam (and the U.S.) during the war, and since the war ended they have been the victims of steadily escalating harrassment at the hands of the Communists, which in recent years has turned into outright genocide.

As far as the environment goes: How do you explain the fact that California went 25 years (from 1976 until a week ago) without building a single new power plant - and, indeed, closed many existing power plants over the same period? Considering how much California's population has grown since '76, the current predicament was numbingly predictable. And don't you think Algore's stated goal of "outlawing the internal combustion engine" is just a little bit radical around the edges?

Whatever,

Anthony J. Brancato

Oh dear Oh dear.
Well, first Id like to say that this new setup is totally confusing, and its very mid wave boomer of them to monitor the message boards. I really resent that and I dont like the watchdog scenario that is being played out here, It doesnt make me feel at ease and this very well might be my last post.
As for Vietnam talk, Vietnam and Nixon's resignation played a very important role in my early formations and opinions towards the government. My parents were very questioning of the government, and I was raised thinking that Presidents were the lowest of the low, not the highest of high. Nixon and Vietnam sort of jaded me from birth, because I was raised thinking there was no hope. Reagans impact was bigger because he was very much a cold warrior, and that frightened me as a little kid. His government seemed unapproachable, secretive, and dangerous, the type of people that could make you disappear if you disagreed. Bush was just weak, my favorite memories are of him throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister, and trying to act tough during desert storm.
Clinton reflected a generational change, I liked him, but his Boomer qualities of narcissism, and impatience, as well as his strong headedness made me feel like he wasnt listening. The one thing I hope my generation (people born in the 60s and 70s) can accomplish is not BSing the American people. I dont want any frills, or patriotic splendor, just this is whats wrong, and this is how were gonna fix it. I hope we can take the deception out of the political process. However, I think that the type of people in my generation that gravitate toward the two political parties are really into kissing ass, and getting promoted, at all costs with no conscience, so we might turn out to be the biggest BS generation politically this country has ever seen...except for maybe the Boomers and GIs :smile:
Justin

Oh, dear. Justin, I don't like it either, but hadn't you noticed the proliferation of SPAM and other beasty behavior on the "old" forum? There was no other choice, and trying to weed out the spam and the "FUCK" posts and god-knows-what-else was well nigh impossible. The passwords and user names is to discourage people who would come on and spam or otherwise be abusive to the website--it's inevitable it would also discourage some honest and intelligent users like yourself but sometimes you don't have a choice but to throw out some of the good (total freedom in posting) with the bad.

Also, this was not a Boomer's idea. Actually, it was a consensus of a number of posters to this site (only half of whom are Boomers) While the moderator/password/login name idea has its problems, it was preferable to the alternatives: (1) trying to cleanse the old forum--an impossible feat that was only going to get worse; (2) turning it into a chatroom (yikes); (3) requiring a REGISTRATION FEE!!; or (4) shutting down the site; or finally (5) allowing it to go the way of Usenet--overrun by spam, trolling, and other crap. :sad:
Having a quiz on T4T and Generations that you must pass to become a member was another idea that is being thrown around.

I agree with you about how confusing it is though. There's a lot of cool features, but it's not exactly user friendly. I hope that doesn't discourage old posters too much, or drive away new ones. Once I master this thing though, I think it will be pretty exciting. You should look at it that way too. Hey, change is good, right?

Justin '79, we will have to find ways to make this web site both user friendly and abuser unfriendly. Perhaps the suggested quizzes could use material from the depths-not the blurbs-of the books. Change the questions periodically. Would-be-abusers might be discouraged when they realize how much material they would have to read before registration. But perhaps the quizzes could be worded so that they would be fun for people who have read the books? As for the atmosphere, I think that eventually it will change once more of the old regulars sign up. I have suggested an idea to enliven the web site-bring in fresh material by investigating the ancient and medieval saeculae listed by David McGuinness. (See archived threads under Beyond America forum). By the way, one of the last posts on the old site was a flame by someone posing as me-I have asked the web master to delete it. ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker '56 on 2001-07-08 00:24 ]</font>

I agree with Susan, Justin. It was necessary to make some fundamental changes to this website-- the alternative was to have had the site completely destroyed, or to have shut it down. All I can say is hang on in there, buddy. Things will get better in due time.


There are some problems with the new site, to be sure. It seems cold and unwelcoming, which may have something to do with the new yellow-and-grey color scheme or the subsitution of the original Times New Roman text with the larger (Arial?) font, but it is hard to say. Those items can be fixed/adjusted, however, and I'm sure they eventually will with the input of site members.


Most likely, however, is that I don't like the new site simply because it is different. I despise change. Although it is necessary for growth, I prefer small, incremental changes to major sea-change-- the latter tends to upset my entire feeling of balance and order in the universe. Perhaps this is what I get from T4T -- a way to make sense of (and cope with) major change without losing my marbles.


Who knows? Perhaps S&H's updated version of "The Fourth Turning" will read: "The Millennial Crisis began in 2001, when the T4T website was so overrun with spam that an authoritarian monitoring system was imposed. This new authoritarianism quickly spread throughout the Internet community, and from cyberspace into the real world where martial law was declared by Dubya in 2003......." :smile: And we can all say we were there at the beginning!

Hey!! This is not an authoritarian board at all. This board only gives us the opportunity to delete spam and inflamatory posts. The old boards was like the wild west, where there was no law, and people were constantly shot and killed. We are just giving law and order to these boards. The discussions can still be continued ininterrupted, that is, if you allow it.

The boards are easy to use. Just register, and then when you are registered, post a new topic, or reply. Much of it is still the same. But on the bright side, you have more access to HTML coding, and might even be able to use javascript and other languages.

Change is usually good. We are now speaking in a more highly evolved discussion forum. This software has quickly become very popular software for various websites, and I used this software for my father's business website. Coincidentally, Craig (the webmaster) saw it fit to use the same software that is quickly becoming standard. This is a Python based forum that has many, many advantages over the old board. This is more orderly, and more segmented.

Order does not equal authoritarianism. This is far from authoritarian, as discussions can still continue without much interruption.

While Kevin hates change, I am the very opposite, as I love and welcome change. And in fact, there is NOT enough change in today's society, and there needs to be more. There is so much that needs to be changed in society. That's what I get from T4T, that we will enter a period of great change. This change will mean much excitement for me and other neophiles like me. So much to do, and so little time to do it.

As for the revitalization of these forums, I believe that the job should fall to the very authors themselves. Revive the "Author's Column". Post new topics that they think is important. S&H should participate more in discussions. Since they did more research than any of us combined (with the exclusion of David McGuiness), then they should ask fundamental questions, and they should provide insight to our discussions. Post topics that are the upmost importance. Each time something happens, the authors should ask for our opinions on what happened, and maybe provide their opinion should they choose to do so. They need to use their Boomerlike gifts to incite and excite discussion on the sites. Being the authors, and Boomers in particular, they shall lead the discussions.

Hello, everyone. While this may seem like a nag, I want to make sure that you post your comments and quesitons about the web site in one the forum designed to discuss the web site and this transition.

Please consider using the Comments on the Web Site topic in the "The Book and Theories of History" forum for comments that focus solely on the web site transition.

The current conversation has included other interesting elements about how people feel about the transition, so I do not want to stop it. (Since this isn't an authoritarian board, I couldn't anyway.) But, posting in the "Comments on the Web Site" forum is the only way to ensure that I see your excellent and welcome suggestions.

Thanks again for your patience and help. -- Craig

Craig, I agree that comments about the web site should be posted to the topic of that name. However, Justin posts to this and only this thread, and was upset and confused about the new format, and we were just responding to his concerns.

Things are not as bad as they seem.

Relax, Robert. The final paragraph of my last post was intended to be very tongue-in-cheek. Although I may find sudden change difficult, it is infinitely preferable to disorder and chaos.

"How do you explain the fact that California
went 25 years (from 1976 until a week ago) without building a single new
power plant - and, indeed, closed many existing power plants over the same
period? Considering how much California's population has grown since '76,
the current predicament was numbingly predictable. And don't you think
Algore's stated goal of "outlawing the internal combustion engine" is just a
little bit radical around the edges?"

Can the webmaster or someone make it possible so we can quote a previous post without breaking up the text? I'm not going to spend extra time making each sentence wrap around inside this little message box. Wrap around should be automatic. Also, can someone explain the meaning of "BBcode"??

How many power plants we build is not the issue to environmentalists, so much as what kind of power plants. We need renewable resources. More of the same kind of power plants depending on resources that will soon dissappear and which cause global warming and climate change does not make sense. I think conservatives such as yourself Anthony will just have to become aware of these facts instead of hanging onto outdated ideas. Otherwise our planet and our resources we depend on are in danger.

Outlawing the internal cobustion engine is something we should have done 30 years ago. The only strange thing is how reactionary we Americans are that we haven't got this done. For heaven's sake, we're burning up the planet while we have all kinds of alteratives that work. It's the conservatives in the red zone that are holding us up while the rest of the world is moving forward. Get with it Anthony.

Last week the following on-line poll appeared on the Netscape home page:

"What's most responsible for teen-age drinking problems?"

IF YOU ANSWERED:....THEN YOU ARE A:
Parents.......................G.I./Millennial
Media...............................Silent
Beer ads............................Boomer
Human nature.....................DUDE!

(You get one guess as to what my response was).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-09 00:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-09 00:39 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-09 00:41 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-09 00:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-09 00:44 ]</font>

DUDE, dude.

I had originally posted the following on the "Civil War Anomaly" thread, in response to Mike Alexander's post about a possible saecular shortening from 84 to 72 years. Once I got into my response, I had a flash of insight concerning his premise, and decided to re-post my response here.


Anyway, my response was as follows:

The problem I still see with a 72-year saeculum is its correlation with generations and phases of life. If average turning lengths of 18 years are becoming the norm, it stands to reason that generations would also be 18 years long. What does this, in turn, imply for life phases?

A strong case can be made that "childhood" has declined in length from 21 to 18 years, as evidenced by our having lowered of the age of majority in 1971 among other phenomena. However, what about middle age? Can we also say that people are now entering midlife at age 37? Probably not. Are people now becoming elders at age 55? Definitely not! (Over my dead Boomer body, in fact! :smile

For the sake of argument, suppose that a fifth phase of life were to be added, from ages 37-54, between young adulthood and midlife. How would this effect the generational archetype lineup? Would there be people born in a new 18-year "betwixt" generation that are a hybrid of the two adjacent gens, or of some new archetype not even conceived of by the authors? Somehow this does not feel right to me.


OTOH (playing Devil's Advocate, now :smile, the saeculum could very well be shortening. A 72 year cycle certainly wouldn't be any stranger than the 100-year cycles of a few centuries ago. Before the Revolutionary War, an average turning was 25 years long. In an era where most people didn't survive much past 50 years of age, and people typically got married in their teens, it would be hard to define a pre-1794 childhood life phase as ages 0-24. IMHO, this is where S&H's theory is at its weakest. In T4T, they never adequately explained to me how and why turnings and generations didn't line up before 1794.


Pursuing this line of thought even further: Is is even necessary that turnings and generations line up? Are the "Beat Generation", "Joneser" and "Gen Y" phenomena evidence of "Generational Overlapping", a way of keeping a shortened saeculum with both its four-stroke generational rhythm intact and in-line with a four-phase life-cycle pattern? In a very real sense, then, people born between 1958 and 1965 would be both Xers AND Boomers AT THE SAME TIME.

The same thing could have happened in reverse before the Revolution, with 3- to 7-year "gen-lets" spacing the 21-year generations apart so that a 90-107 year saeculum would still line up with 21-year life cycles and generational archetypes. Members of both the pre-1794 genlets and post-1865 overlap cohorts (Beat, Jones and Y) would exhibit a hybrid generational archetype.


Hmmmm....i'd never before considered such an intriguing possibility-- one which would complete, rather than wreck, the Authors' theory of generations and turnings.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-07-10 19:28 ]</font>

The concept of overlapping generations was actually suggested by Justin a while back, and it is an intriguing theory. The whole problem of "where to set the dates" is solved when you realize that those born between years X and Y are composites of both the generation before and after, rather than one or the other. It does not mess up S&H's four-cycle theory, and ties up a lot of the loose ends. I tend to agree with Kevin about the Beats being a "generation" between Silents and Boomers that is a combination of both, just as Jonesers are both Boom and X, and Gen Y is both X and Millie.

the beats are really a phenomenon that started with the late GIs and ended with the early Boomers.But thats just a cultural phenomenon, the same as the "sixties Generation" Anthony describes. The 60s generation was really Silents and Boomers, the difference being that the Silents were entering midlife at that time, and boomers were entering young adulthood. if you look closely at the two groups, youll see a line drawn in the Civil Rights Movement. The Silents were involved in that primarily. The Boomers really came of age by the time the Vietnam War was flaring. Their demeanor was entirely different. "We Shall Overcome" vs. "Burn Baby, Burn."
Ive been thinking that the African American Prophet generation has been cemented by two groups, at one end, the leaders of the Black Panthers and SNCC, born in the early 40s, that signified the split between the Silent demeanor and new boomer demeanor. On the opposite end, I can think of no greater split than between recent visionaries like spike Lee '57, one of the most preachy filmmakers of our day, and Chuck D '60..who both are the last gasps of that movement in the way it was articulated in the 60s.
then just look at the punks a few years younger, i can see why they call us a disgrace. Luther Campbell, the frontman for 2 Live Crew a 61 cohort, who starts a line of trouble that finishes with the 20 year old MC Shyne who just got sent up the river for shooting a gun off in that night club that Puff Daddy got arrested in. I use hip hop as an example, because there is no movement really that my generation has produced. If it can be seen as anything, my generation took what little hip hop was made by elders like Chuck D, Grandmaster Flash, Gil Scott Heron, and made it the controversial subject it is today, not through being political like Ice T, but through being violent like NWA, or profane like D12, many of who's members are my age. Although there are many diamonds of spiritual revival in todays hip hop,like from artists like Common, De La Soul, Tribe, i have a feeling my generation has produced music that will be known for glitz, ice, gold chains and teeth, girls with big booties, and overproduction, Even Q-Tip from Tribe Called Quest went the way of showbiz. Thats what this Nomad generation has produced for you. It sounds eerily like the 20s.

In response to Kevin Parker's comments about life expectancy being shorter in eras gone past. It is true that life expectancy was much shorter. However, this was largely because one's odds of dying in infancy or childhood were so high. One also had a higher mortality rate in adulthood, when conditions such as tuberculosis, complicated childbirth, and pneumonia killed you. However, if you made it to 50, you had an excellent chance of making it to old age. Super-elders, aged 80 or older, were not that unusual, particularly among the upper classes. For example, Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, at advanced ages (Adams was 90, Jefferson not much younger).

Also, while it is true that often women married as soon as they reached physical maturity (in their late teens, since girls mature sooner today), men often waited until they were able to support a family, which was often in their twenties or even thirties. What has changed is that in the pre-industrial era, men and women held adult roles in the farm or village starting in their teens, whereas nowadays, people don't start supporting themselves until after high school or more commonly, college.

Ok. Can turnings be caused by two different generations at work?

Late GI + Early Silent = Beats
Late Silent + Early Boomer = 60's generation
Late Boomer + Early Xer's = Yuppies
Late Xer's + Early Millies = ?

Does this make sense?

I see your point, Jessie, but I think there's a more accurate description of these cohort groups that avoids stereotypes such as "Yuppie." Lots of late Boomers and a few early-blooming early Xers were indeed yuppies, but most were not. Same thing with the "Sixties Generation," which has come to be almost synomymous with "hippie." Lots of late Silents and many more early Boomers were indeed hippies, but again, most were probably not. A while back, I came up with a simple two-word description of Boomers, Jonesers, and Xers that focuses on the general mindset of these cohort groups rather than on their corresponding stereotypes. These descriptions also graphically show the transitional generations' hybrid nature (Jonesers, Gen Y). They seemed to catch on with a few people here, so I'll mention them again:

early Boomers: Optimistic idealists

late Boomers (Jones): Pessimistic idealists

early Xers: Pessimistic realists

late Xers (Gen Y): Optimistic realists

And I've added a few new ones:

Millies and GI Generation: Optimistic leaders and players (I can't find a way to split up Hero gens as I could Nomad, Artist and Prophet gens)

Early Silent: Subversive conformists

Late Silent: Subversive individualists

If anyone else can think of better two-word descriptions for any of the above, please share them.


_________________
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 2001-07-11 20:01 ]</font>

In Generations, S&H divided the GIs into two parts. The first part were the most optimistic, while the second part was the most rationalist. So maybe you can work that into your scheme.

Well, from a beat page, i scowered the following birth dates
Lawrence Ferlinghetti (1919-)
William S Burroughs (1914-1997)
Gary Snyder (1930-)
Peter Orlovsky (1933-)
Neal Cassady (1925-1968)
Jack Kerouac (1922-1969)
Michael McClure (1932-)
Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)

The following letter has been e-mailed (by me) to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Now that Peiping (alias Beijing) has been awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics, we should issue an ultimatum to the Red Chinese government: Get out of Tibet by the end of 2007 or we're boycotting the Games.

Will the Chicoms comply? Probably not.

So get ready for the countdown come midnight on December 31, 2007: Five, four, three, two, one - Happy Boycott!"

Signed,

Anthony Brancato

Right on Anthony.
I wonder if there will be special China sponsored events like Political Dissident Execution-athon, or How many fingernails can you pull out of the Buddhist Monk in two minutes-athon. China makes me sick.