Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

While Mexico may be two different places culturally, turning wise, there is no reason to suggest any disjointment as their previous crisis was the same. I know nothing about Mexico, but has anyone considered the possibility of a civil war?

I kind of was hinting about that possibility in my post. It would seem to me that when such a divide is present inside a country, it is only because the borders of the country contain more than they 'should'. The ways to rectify that are only two: to re-draw, such that what was once one is now two or more, each internally consistent, or for the two cultures to smash at each other until one grinds the other down to irrelevancy. If one assumes that secession will be met by opposition from the other party, then either road would lead to war.

Of course, this is speaking all in hypotheticals about an unproven theory as supposedly applied without adequate evidence to a country none of us know first-hand. So I hope we would all stop far short of calling war in Mexico more than purely one of a whole range of possibilities...

As noted by someone else, the public mood soured in 2005. After winning reelection, the popularity of Bush and public confidence on the government fell slowly. Even before Katrina, the American public was clearly becoming more restless and that the post-9/11 consensus was breaking apart. While the Democrats were not becoming more popular, per se, the regime itself was breaking down.

A Crisis is defined by pre-S&H historians as being "a sudden acceleration of the historic process in a terrifying manner, making a return to the status quo impossible". That's precisely what Katrina did. It took the trend apparent in 2005, and greatly accelerated events. Where in the pre-Katrina months, the decay was gradual, in the Katrina event, the change was convulsive and instantaneous. Public sentiment tanked to new lows. The destructive hurricane season and high energy prices very nearly led to a national oil panic. People increasingly spoke about the need to conserve, or revert to renewables.

Hurricane Katrina also ripped apart whatever remained of the politico-economic consensus that developed in the Reagan years. The decay of civic institutions suddenly became intolerable. Poor people were suddenly in the news, and the event heightened racial and class tensions. All of a sudden, the idea that "government is the problem" was repudiated. Instead, like the other catalysts, the perceived problem was "bad government."

The event seemed to recall the 1930s to many people. Many recalled an angry and desperate populace against the backdrop of a perceived uncaring Hoover, and many called Katrina our modern day Grapes of Wrath. In fact, it strikes many people how Katrina rhymed with the Grapes of Wrath.

Just two months ago, there was a Democratic sweep of Congress and many governorship positions. The election was clearly a repudiation of the current regime. Since Katrina, national issues have taken clear precedence over cultural wedge issues. Also, Katrina never did get caught up in the media circus. It immediately broke free from it.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

As noted by someone else, the public mood soured in 2005. After winning reelection, the popularity of Bush and public confidence on the government fell slowly. Even before Katrina, the American public was clearly becoming more restless and that the post-9/11 consensus was breaking apart. While the Democrats were not becoming more popular, per se, the regime itself was breaking down.

A Crisis is defined by pre-S&H historians as being "a sudden acceleration of the historic process in a terrifying manner, making a return to the status quo impossible". That's precisely what Katrina did. It took the trend apparent in 2005, and greatly accelerated events. Where in the pre-Katrina months, the decay was gradual, in the Katrina event, the change was convulsive and instantaneous. Public sentiment tanked to new lows. The destructive hurricane season and high energy prices very nearly led to a national oil panic. People increasingly spoke about the need to conserve, or revert to renewables.

Hurricane Katrina also ripped apart whatever remained of the politico-economic consensus that developed in the Reagan years. The decay of civic institutions suddenly became intolerable. Poor people were suddenly in the news, and the event heightened racial and class tensions. All of a sudden, the idea that "government is the problem" was repudiated. Instead, like the other catalysts, the perceived problem was "bad government."

The event seemed to recall the 1930s to many people. Many recalled an angry and desperate populace against the backdrop of a perceived uncaring Hoover, and many called Katrina our modern day Grapes of Wrath. In fact, it strikes many people how Katrina rhymed with the Grapes of Wrath.

Just two months ago, there was a Democratic sweep of Congress and many governorship positions. The election was clearly a repudiation of the current regime. Since Katrina, national issues have taken clear precedence over cultural wedge issues. Also, Katrina never did get caught up in the media circus. It immediately broke free from it.

Wow. This is the most concise and well-presented argument for my position I have seen. I took the SAT today; wish you'd written my essay instead of me.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> ..unless you have computers monitoring the economy instead of
> human bureaucrats. The Russians did in fact see the disaster
> coming and tried to develop a computer to run their economy. But
> they'd sent all their best thinkers to the gulag (or to America),
> and they tried to design it to be as centralized and hierarchical
> as the Party itself... which meant that their proposed system
> retained the same mathematical impossibilities and therefore
> failed.

This is an interesting idea, but it has problems of its own.

Enterprise resource processing (ERP) systems like SAP have required
some 10 years of development and an army of programmers before they
began to get it right, and what you're suggesting is an ERP system
for an entire country. I rather suspect that if it takes 0.01% of
the population to manage price control and related transactions, then
it will take 0.1% of the population to implement the development,
education and training of the population to get a country-wide ERP
system to work, and by the time it's done the Singularity will be here
anyway.

Perhaps when the computers begin to take over as the Singularity
approaches in the late 2020s, the computers will try a communist
state for a while. Should be interesting, though I won't be around
to see it. But maybe you will.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> "Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their
> northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls
> with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle.
> Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about
> ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready
> yet. Hence we have the new geographic split in votes with the
> conservative PAN power base in the north and the radical PRD power
> base in the south. (The PRI is trying to reinvent itself; it may
> become the equivalent of the British Lib-Dems, or it may die and
> be consumed by the other two major parties.) Lopez-Obrador wanted
> to be a radical GC of the Huey Long mode, but while his support in
> the south was ready, the rest of Mexico thought him an annoyance.

While we're at it, let's put the United States into three different
timelines -- one for Mexico, one for the middle, and one for Canada.
That way, we'll have all our bases covered.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I rather suspect that if it takes 0.01% of
the population to manage price control and related transactions, then
it will take 0.1% of the population to implement the development,
education and training of the population to get a country-wide ERP
system to work, and by the time it's done the Singularity will be here
anyway.

I didn't say it was a good idea.

While we're at it, let's put the United States into three different
timelines -- one for Mexico, one for the middle, and one for Canada.
That way, we'll have all our bases covered.

Nope. Canada had the same Civil War anomaly we did; Confederation was accomplished in 1867, mainly because Canada was scared stiff that the Radical Republicans would turn the Union Army north. And Canada had the same WWII cycle we did -- maybe a few years earlier due to the 1931 Westminster Conference, which might explain the ~1990 Quebec separatist votes. But Canada's basically on our cycle.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why not find a nice convenient interstate border in Mexico (Oaxaca/Puebla might be a place to start) and split the country up? C&C's analysis is pretty good, and if Mexico is clearly split, generational-cycle-wise, along geographically-distinct regions, it's probably not something that mere democracy can overcome. So duping the majority-turning onto the minority would be pretty seriously inaccurate.

What a lovely way to have a civil war!

...and it may yet happen. That was basically how we had a civil war, after all. A more likely outcome is the same as the outcome of our own civil war: the industrialized, better organized north overwhelms the south and destroys its antiquated plantation system. (Yes, boys and girls, South Mexico is still running on the sharecropping system.)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

A more likely outcome is the same as the outcome of our own civil war: the industrialized, better organized north overwhelms the south and destroys its antiquated plantation system.

I dunno.. I just can't seem to see the Indio of Durango and Sonora doing much better than holding onto their own against the Indio of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and the Yucutan.

Or, frankly, seeing much in the way of motivation for the Indio to actually rise to arms against their similarly-oppressed countrymen for the benefit of their Euro rulers.

And a lot of Mexico is Indio.

...but that's just me. And my first-hand about Mexico is easily more than a decade old...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I dunno.. I just can't seem to see the Indio of Durango and Sonora doing much better than holding onto their own against the Indio of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and the Yucutan.

Or, frankly, seeing much in the way of motivation for the Indio to actually rise to arms against their similarly-oppressed countrymen for the benefit of their Euro rulers.

And a lot of Mexico is Indio.

...but that's just me. And my first-hand about Mexico is easily more than a decade old...

It ain't Dixie but the Wild, Wild West in which the Mexican equal of a Progressive Gen. Sheridan will eliminate the ejidos and the livin' Injuns that wish to remain in such an unProgresive setting. The haciendas, like the holdings of the cattle barons, will be untouched.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I dunno.. I just can't seem to see the Indio of Durango and Sonora doing much better than holding onto their own against the Indio of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and the Yucutan.

Or, frankly, seeing much in the way of motivation for the Indio to actually rise to arms against their similarly-oppressed countrymen for the benefit of their Euro rulers.

And a lot of Mexico is Indio.

...but that's just me. And my first-hand about Mexico is easily more than a decade old...

Ahh, but how many of the rulers are still Euro? And how many Indios have made it to at least the middle class?

Maybe it hasn't happened enough yet; I don't have data to know. Whether it happens this cycle or next, the point at which Mexico's story ceases to be about the Spanish oppressor and starts being about the success of "native" Mexicans is the point at which this cycle of self-victimization ceases. (That's not just Mexico; it applies to the whole of Latin America. It's just that Mexico is the first place it might stop.)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> "Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their
> northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls
> with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle.
> Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about
> ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready
> yet. Hence we have the new geographic split in votes with the
> conservative PAN power base in the north and the radical PRD power
> base in the south. (The PRI is trying to reinvent itself; it may
> become the equivalent of the British Lib-Dems, or it may die and
> be consumed by the other two major parties.) Lopez-Obrador wanted
> to be a radical GC of the Huey Long mode, but while his support in
> the south was ready, the rest of Mexico thought him an annoyance.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Nope. Canada had the same Civil War anomaly we did; Confederation
was accomplished in 1867, mainly because Canada was scared stiff
that the Radical Republicans would turn the Union Army north. And
Canada had the same WWII cycle we did -- maybe a few years earlier
due to the 1931 Westminster Conference, which might explain the
~1990 Quebec separatist votes. But Canada's basically on our
cycle.

What you're describing here is completely impossible.

Once a crisis war occurs and reaches its climax and resolution, then
the generational relationships are fixed for the rest of the
saeculum.

There's no "magic wand" that you can wave over a country to change
the Nomads into Artists and the Artists into Nomads, unless your
magic wand can change brain cells.

What is possible within a saeculum is to change the fault lines.
Thus, the fault lines between the three countries England, France and
Germany have shifted around several times during the crisis wars of
the last millennium. One of the best ways to understand how fault
line changes can occur is through "Pólya's Urn and Kismet," which I
wrote about several months ago in another thread.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1535

As for Mexico, I'm not aware of any major fault line changes, and I
don't understand you to be claiming there were. The major fault line
in the Mexican Revolution was between the indigenous peoples (Mayans
in the south, Aztecs and Commancheros in the north) and the Europeans
(descendants of the Spanish and French), and Pancho Villa led the
indigenous people from both north and south in the Mexican
Revolution. Today, Andrés Manuel López Obrador wants to be the new
Pancho Villa. I wrote about all this in another thread a few weeks
ago.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...9&postcount=11

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Ahh, but how many of the rulers are still Euro? And how many Indios have made it to at least the middle class?

Maybe it hasn't happened enough yet; I don't have data to know. Whether it happens this cycle or next, the point at which Mexico's story ceases to be about the Spanish oppressor and starts being about the success of "native" Mexicans is the point at which this cycle of self-victimization ceases. (That's not just Mexico; it applies to the whole of Latin America. It's just that Mexico is the first place it might stop.)

You might also want to touch bases with Amy Chua's concept of 'ethnic dominant minorities.' There are lots of places around the world where one civilization has put a dominant minority in charge of the locals. The ethnic minority by precedent and mutual backscratching keeps an economic and political advantage over the local majority. The relationship takes on many forms in many parts of the world. We have Jews in Israel, and had Saddam's Sunni in Iraq. Africa is a hodge podge of ethnic and religious inequalities. The Russians and Chinese expanded into traditionally Muslim areas...

As there is no one single way an ethnic minority establishes dominance, there is no single solution as to how to make the problem vanish. The ethnic, class, religious, political, military and economic aspects can be very different from one place to another.

But I'll second 'not just Mexico' and 'not just Latin America.'

Your description of the cultural and political landscape in Mexico sounds very similar to the US for a century or more after the Civil War, where the culture of the South was very different than that of the North. That all began to change in the 1970's when manufacturing came to the South in an effort to brake free of strong unionization in the North. As we all know, this eventually led to the shipment of jobs to third world countries where wage rates were even lower. I don't think the American people would stand for it, but someone at an event I went to last summer suggested that Americans should cut their pay by 50 percent in order to better compete with other nations. Some might accept this only if another depression were to occur.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

What you're describing here is completely impossible.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There's no "magic wand" that you can wave over a country to change the Nomads into Artists and the Artists into Nomads, unless your
magic wand can change brain cells.

Nor am I claiming any such thing. The increased economic and social interaction with the United States is delaying the approach of North Mexico to the Crisis, both due to the drug trade and to the NAFTA-inspired investment (which was, surprise surprise, concentrated in the north of the country). The South went into Crisis right on schedule and is trying to drag the North in, but the North is still resisting.

As for Mexico, I'm not aware of any major fault line changes, and I
don't understand you to be claiming there were. The major fault line
in the Mexican Revolution was between the indigenous peoples (Mayans
in the south, Aztecs and Commancheros in the north) and the Europeans
(descendants of the Spanish and French), and Pancho Villa led the
indigenous people from both north and south in the Mexican
Revolution. Today, Andrés Manuel López Obrador wants to be the new
Pancho Villa. I wrote about all this in another thread a few weeks
ago.

And my point is that AMLO didn't get the support he expected from the Aztecs, Commancheros, and Tlaxcala. According to the standard pattern they should have arisen with the Maya to smash the neo-hidalgo order, but they didn't. PRI represented the neo-hidalgos for most of this saeculum; if it were still in power, AMLO would have succeeded, and we would be in exactly the same pattern as last saeculum: AMLO as Villa and Calderon as Obregon.

But something DID change; the Unraveling did not proceed as expected. PAN represents the new class, which has hidalgo elements but also some of the new wealth created by the influx of dollars from the gringos. Not all of the nouveau riche have that old hidalgo thought pattern, and so things are thrown off -- the fault line has shifted, as you say.

Of course, if the money flow stops, the North/South distinction mainly disappears and matters revert to their former state. Hence my suggestion that Mexico will enter civil war with the next major American recession.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You might also want to touch bases with Amy Chua's concept of 'ethnic dominant minorities.'....

As there is no one single way an ethnic minority establishes dominance, there is no single solution as to how to make the problem vanish. The ethnic, class, religious, political, military and economic aspects can be very different from one place to another.

Very true! I'll see you one Amy Chua and raise you by Hernando de Soto, who at least claims to have the way out for Latin America. (It's for dang sure a better idea than AMLO/chavismo, a modern Robin Hood trick which fails as soon as you can't efficiently steal from the rich any more.)

I can recognize the problem elsewhere, but I don't know enough about, say, Malaysia to speak effectively about the cognate problem there.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Your description of the cultural and political landscape in Mexico sounds very similar to the US for a century or more after the Civil War, where the culture of the South was very different than that of the North. That all began to change in the 1970's when manufacturing came to the South in an effort to brake free of strong unionization in the North. As we all know, this eventually led to the shipment of jobs to third world countries where wage rates were even lower. I don't think the American people would stand for it, but someone at an event I went to last summer suggested that Americans should cut their pay by 50 percent in order to better compete with other nations. Some might accept this only if another depression were to occur.

I know I'd only accept it if given no other choice. With a 50% pay cut I might barely be able to pay my mortgage since I'd fall to a lower tax bracket. But I'd have to choose between my car and food on the table.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I don't think the American people would stand for it, but someone at an event I went to last summer suggested that Americans should cut their pay by 50 percent in order to better compete with other nations. Some might accept this only if another depression were to occur.

Well, if it didn't follow a depression, it would most certainly cause one -- assuming you meant that wages would be cut but prices remain the same. If that happened, we would have a complete collapse in consumption, which is 70+% of the US economy. Of course, in real (purchasing-power-adjusted) terms, most Americans have been taking a pay cut every year since the late '70s.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
> it means.

You really think I don't know what "impossible" means? Well, maybe
you're right. I tend to use the word as meaning "with near-zero
probability."

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> Nor am I claiming any such thing. The increased economic and
> social interaction with the United States is delaying the approach
> of North Mexico to the Crisis, both due to the drug trade and to
> the NAFTA-inspired investment (which was, surprise surprise,
> concentrated in the north of the country). The South went into
> Crisis right on schedule and is trying to drag the North in, but
> the North is still resisting. ...

> Of course, if the money flow stops, the North/South distinction
> mainly disappears and matters revert to their former state. Hence
> my suggestion that Mexico will enter civil war with the next major
> American recession.

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

I was mainly reacting (you might say that I was overreacting) to
this:

Originally Posted by catfishncod

> "Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their
> northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls
> with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle.
> Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about
> ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready
> yet.

So just to emphasize areas of agreement: The North has benefited more
financially from business relationships with America, and probably
from remittances as well. The south is poorer than the north (I
haven't looked into this, but it seems credible). And Mexico is
headed for Civil War, most likely triggered by a financial crisis,
probably from an American recession -- or from a global financial
crisis.

But that doesn't mean that Mexico is anything like two generationally
separate countries.

We can look at lots of examples right here to illustrate the
concepts. If there were a crime wave in Framingham, it wouldn't
bother you in the least, and vice versa if there were a crime wave in
Cambridge. And neither of us would care much if there were a crime
wave in New York. The Oklahoma City bombing didn't cause a
generational panic, but the 9/11 events did. There are pockets of
poverty in America today, but they don't cause a national panic.
Also, there's no sense of national panic (yet) over rapidly falling
real estate prices in some regions of the country. The generational
panic caused by the 1929 crash did not happen because of poverty; it
happened because ... well, because it was a panic.

My belief is that all of Mexico is in a 4th turning now, or even a
fifth turning. But that still doesn't mean that any event can cause
a generational panic, certainly not "mere" poverty. What's required
is the proper kind of triggering event, and when that event occurs,
the northern and southern portions of Mexico will be unified in their
panic. So in the end, Mexico will be one country generationally.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

...someone at an event I went to last summer suggested that Americans should cut their pay by 50 percent in order to better compete with other nations. Some might accept this only if another depression were to occur.

This would effectively take place if the dollar's value were to fall by a factor of two on the world currency markets. I find this to be a very plausible possibility. So does Warren Buffett, which is why he added foreign currency reserves to Berkshire Hathaway's holdings a few years ago.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You really think I don't know what "impossible" means? Well, maybe
you're right. I tend to use the word as meaning "with near-zero
probability."

I take it you are not a fan of William Goldman's The Princess Bride.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I take it you are not a fan of William Goldman's The Princess Bride.

Ummmmmmm ... I need help with this one.

John

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I take it you are not a fan of William Goldman's The Princess Bride.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Ummmmmmm ... I need help with this one.

John

http://imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes#qt0218684

HTH

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Ummmmmmm ... I need help with this one.

John

Mr X: I'm sorry, but this movie is required viewing if you want to play on the internet.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

1990: the eldest Millenial on T4T says hi to the youngest. :-) And I notice your map doesn't assign a Turning to East Africa... why? I would have thought the Rwandan genocide and the Zimbabwean disasters, not to mention the challenge of AIDS, pretty definitive (coming ~80 years after colonizers finally got established in the inland areas).

------------------

We end on a quieter note:

Neisha '67: My 20-year-old brother used "I Like Pie" instead at that age...

Not to nitpick, but Jenny and Finch are the ones with kids who say "I like cheese." I have a six-year-old who knows nothing of the "cheese" reference (and as a result, neither do I). We're heavily into "Captain Underpants" right now.

Also, are you the oldest Millie? I thought Elizabeth Kelsey was the oldest with a late 1981 birthdate?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Mr X: I'm sorry, but this movie is required viewing if you want to play on the internet.

Or within certain circles, at least, it is quoted as often as Monty Python and the Holy Grail. One might consider, however, that some Real Men try very hard to pretend they don't travel in Those Circles. It is sort of like admitting one has cooties.

Me, I'm having problems with Texas Hold Em' culture and slang. So far, I've only encountered the problem on this site, but some seem to think poker metaphors so apt and well known that they can assume all the world are Hold Em' players. Lots of us have assorted interests. Many such interests have their own dialects and cultural refrence points. It is strange watching some obscure cliques try to assume they are main line, and expect the general public to keep up with their refrences.

But Princess Bride is a fine fine movie. It almost does the book justice. As a former martial artist, I only wish that when they portrayed that clash between two of the greatest fencers of their age, they had hired actors who knew how to hold a sword.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Not to nitpick, but Jenny and Finch are the ones with kids who say "I like cheese." I have a six-year-old who knows nothing of the "cheese" reference (and as a result, neither do I). We're heavily into "Captain Underpants" right now.

Also, are you the oldest Millie? I thought Elizabeth Kelsey was the oldest with a late 1981 birthdate?

He was born fairly early in 1981 and graduated high school with the class of 1996 (and therefore would be considered an Xer by S&H), yet he alternates between identifying as a Millie and an X/Mil cusper.

By contrast, I have been clinging onto cusp status for dear life since I started posting here more than half a decade ago!