Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It isn't hardship itself that implies a Crisis. The generational cycle seems to operate despite emancipation of minorities, economic growth, universal education, technological change, and greater sophistication about human nature. Instead the wars of extreme destructiveness, wholesale slaughters, class warfare, systematic persecutions of minorities, and the like that force 'resets'.

I expect, if anything, a reset. It could be awkward; young adults could be pushed into generational roles for which they are ill-suited in view of their early upbringing. If a Crisis is imposed at some time other than the usual time -- most likely from abroad or under a tyrannical ruler who chooses to impose a Crisis -- then the effects upon living generations will be awkward. Young adults at the time of the Crisis might be pushed into Hero/Civic roles that they perform badly in the ensuing 1T; children of the Crisis are certain to act much like Adaptive/Artists in response to the usual overprotection. Such happened at the end of the American Civil War, after which the Gilded took on much of the Hero role in midlife -- but not very well because they lacked the preparation in childhood that one associates with Hero/Civic generations. H&S describe that very well.

OK, I understand your position better. My point is that there has never been a time where this has happened in a 1T or 2T and there is no way that this could happen. The generational structures won't allow for it.

Ethiopia. Italy attempted to conquer Ethiopia in the 1890s, and Ethiopia successfully resisted the effort. In the aftermath of the defeat of the early Italian effort to incorporate Ethiopia into its empire, Ethiopia was able to establish many of the trappings of a modern political structure and assert the distinctness of centuries of civilization.

Oh, pbrower2a, you are so predictable! I KNEW you were going to say Ethiopia! Yes, it's clear the Battle of Adowa was the 1896 climax to the first war.

In 1936 Benito Mussolini imposed a Crisis upon Ethiopia with an invasion. British forces and the Ethiopian "Gideon Force" liberated the country in 1940. The former Italian colony of Eritrea (which Ethiopia had long claimed) was grafted onto Ethiopia.

But the second clearly was not a Crisis War.

It appears to be one because Italy was well into its Crisis era and you had two countries fighting in different turnings. I recommend looking into their post WWII history. Doesn't sound like a Recovery period to me. They seem a little lost and aimless.

Try here ( http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ettoc.html ), perhaps you will come to a different conclusion.

In the 1970s, the Sahel drought hit Ethiopia particularly hard; the traditional order failed to meet the menace of mass starvation. A coup overthrew the elderly Haile Selassie and within a few years a full-blown commie regime appeared with the usual attempt to establish a "socialist paradise" as a shortcut to prosperity and national unity. Neither prosperity nor national unity arose; Ethiopia rifted in regional secessions.

I am not fully aware of Ethiopian cultural trends -- literature, music, art, and the like -- but I can surely see three Crises within a century.

Ya Ya Ya, Occam's Razor. Remove the middle one and you got yourself a nice simple timeline.

What 1990 said.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I think they are all 4T but I don't care much.

I know, but we can't discriminate. All countries are created equal, even if some are more equal than others.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I haven't given an exact date for various reasons. For example, I find the 2015 date to be too restrictive. Why not 2010? or 2020? 2015 should be the middle of the Crisis but why not the beginning? Or the end? We need something that is most relevant to the time today. Not 2015.

I understand, but you need to have some idea of what year to pick, because not all countries automatically switch turnings in the same year. In 2010, Vietnam will still be 2T (a turning which probably began in the late 1990s). But in 2020, it will almost surely be 3T. In 1970, Vietnam was 4T, but in 1980 it was 1T. Thus we need to have some idea when our maps take place.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

So I think the best thing to do is to keep it present or maybe a year or two in advance. This would paint the best picture.

Okay, that seems fair.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Internal Crisis War (ethnic) -- Major war among ethnic groups.
Internal Crisis War (political) -- Major war along political lines in a country.
External Crisis War -- Pretty Straightforward. Nations fighting other nations.
Rebellion -- Perhaps a war, but not a Crisis War. Just a major rebellion.
High Instability -- Not really a full rebellion, nor just a coup. But lots of crap.
Coup -- Perhaps riots and some violence, but its a coup first.
Reform -- A major period of reform without much of the above.
Miscellaneous -- Stuff that doesn't fit. Economics and others.

The collapse of the USSR could be argued to include an internal ethnic crisis war (Chechnya, with a climax around 1999), rebellion (1991 coup), high instability throughout Yeltsin's reign, coup (1991 coup again), reform (both under Gorby and Yeltsin), and miscellaneous (economic collapse).

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I thought about this, and I almost pulled the trigger on that. First of all, what you write appears to be almost unpredictable. We'd need more examples. So right now I'm willing to play the 'I don't know' card and leave them all the same. Anyone interested in the history of the nation can find it for themselves.

You might be right. The Country Studies will cover the details anyway.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by Nomad64

> Further thoughts on South Africa:

> In a way, it is a great example of this multi-peoples, timeline
> intermingling we have touched on.

> For the Blacks, their prior Crises could be noted as
> 1820 Shaka Zulu's Mfecane
> 1879 Anglo-Zulu War

> For the Whites
> 1902 Boer War

> One could assert that 1948 ends up being a Crisis for Blacks, but
> not for the Whites.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I only know a little about the Zulu Kingdom but I could see this
> working. I think John X. knows a thing or two about the history so
> hopefully he'll lend a hand here.

I really don't see how this is possible.

No reasons are given for these evaluations, so I'll try to guess why
these evaluations were reached, and respond to them.

I assume that the 1879 Anglo-Zulu war was considered a crisis war for
the Zulus was because it ended the Zulu kingdom. But that kind of
political change can happen as an Awakening climax as well, such as
was the case with Germany after WW I. On the other hand, the Zulus
fought the war half-heartedly, so I don't see how this could be a
crisis war for them.

As we discussed long ago with regard to the four factors in
evaluating crisis wars, the fourth factor, "determine the resolution
of the war," is the weakest of the four indicators, and should be
used only when the other three don't lead to a conclusion.

I assume that the 1902 Boer War was considered a crisis war for
England was because the British troops were a little more brutal than
they had to be. But I see no genocidal fury here, and besides, the
Boer war was very unpopular at home, and the characterizations of
British "brutalities" would have come from anti-war opponents, much
as characterizations of American Abu Ghraib "brutalities" come from
America-haters like Seymour Hersch. Furthermore, the Boers fought
the Boer war much more aggressively and energetically than the Zulus
fought the Anglo-Zulu war, so that appears to me to be a crisis war
for them.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt and Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Finished!! Voilà.
>

I just really want to say how blown away I am with the work that you
guys are doing. I just wish I had the time to participate more. For
two kids in high school to have done what you've done -- especially
the in-depth analytic work - is really amazing. You've taken no
short cuts. This is graduate school level work, and when you're done
with the written document your work could qualify for a Master's
thesis. Congratulations!

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Yes, I agree. I'm currently categorizing all the crises I can find since the American Revolution. This will take some time to compile, but my categories so far are:

Internal Crisis War (ethnic) -- Major war among ethnic groups.
Internal Crisis War (political) -- Major war along political lines in a country.
External Crisis War -- Pretty Straightforward. Nations fighting other nations.
Rebellion -- Perhaps a war, but not a Crisis War. Just a major rebellion.
High Instability -- Not really a full rebellion, nor just a coup. But lots of crap.
Coup -- Perhaps riots and some violence, but its a coup first.
Reform -- A major period of reform without much of the above.
Miscellaneous -- Stuff that doesn't fit. Economics and others.

The order is intentional (although External Crisis War could be moved to the number 1 spot) and one should go down the list for evaluation. For example, if there is a Civil War between two different political parties (option 3), but the parties are exclusively made up of two different ethnic groups, then it would be option 1. Or if there is a full-blown rebellion that is capped off by a coup, then it fits under a rebellion, since rebellion indicates a higher level of Crisis energy.

Some countries may have to have two categories such as China's most recent Crisis and the American Revolution, which involved both an internal and external war.

I would classify any significant Communist revolution or usurpation as a Crisis in itself, a Crisis that does not end until at the least the full consolidation of Communist rule, the cessation of a threat, or the completion of wars relating to the communist overthrow. The formation of a rival commie government within the country of contest would itself be evidence of a 4T (example: the Greek Civil War). All communist takeovers so far have been violent with the result of a nearly-complete overthrow of the Old Order. This is far more significant than, for example, the establishment (1905 -- Norway) or the abolition (1946 -- Italy) of a constitutional monarchy in a free election or referendum, or the transformation of a parliamentary system into a presidential system (1958 -- France) or vice-versa. Even the splintering of a larger country into two (Czechoslovakia in 1993) is not a Crisis if it happens without significant strife. Decolonization can be very peaceful (Philippines, Morocco, Kenya, Botswana) or extremely violent (Angola, Algeria, Vietnam, Congo-Kinshasa). The former is a non-Crisis because the social order changes little (people with ties to the old colonial order get to remain and keep their property, persecutions of ethnic or religious minorities don't begin, and the transition flows smoothly as intended.

Peaceful change that overthrows an unpopular dictatorship or an unsustainable order (the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, most overthrows of Communist rule in the former Soviet Union and central and southeastern Europe, the abolition of Apartheid, or the steady transformation of a fascist dictatorship into a Democracy as under Juan Carlos II in Spain -- those aren't Crises. There may be a new social order, but there's no crystallization of a rigid new rule; if anything the rigidity disappears.

Sometimes some event determines whether a polity goes into a Crisis or doesn't. The Philippines could have gone into a Crisis had Ferdinand Marcos been recognized as the winner of the 1986 election that he rigged. Cooler heads than his prevailed, especially in the Philippine military and the powerful Catholic Church... and dire consequences characteristic of a Crisis (insurrections, purges) didn't happen. Was that because the Philippines was unready for a Crisis? Maybe. After all, 1986 was a mere forty years after the last Crisis for the Philippines (World War II) and close to the 2T-3T cusp when libertarian tendencies prevail.

A border skirmish is not a major war -- but should an invader attempt to establish a new political system -- whether for good intentions for the people whose country is invaded (example: Iraq in 2003, Grenada or Panama in the 1990s) or ill (any Nazi or Japanese fascist invasion in WW II, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Soviet interventions in Afghanistan largely in the 1980s) one likely has a Crisis. Major democide or expulsions of course indicate a Crisis. Famines? If severe and uncharacteristic of a country in recent decades, or if associated with some design for killing, in which they constitute democide.

Coups? Assassinations? Terrorist strikes? That depends upon the consequences. If a coup is intended to preserve or restore old social relationships and succeeds (Chile 1974) it is no Crises. If it is standard procedure (Turkey lots of times) it is no Crisis. Neither the 2T terrorism of the Weather Underground nor the 3T bombing of the Murrah Building is a Crisis event.

Life-and-death struggles for the polity in question are typically Crises. Britain during the Blitz was clearly in Crisis, as the Soviet Union would be during the Great Patriotic War. Abrupt change intended to establish a revolutionary New Order suggests Crisis.

Originally Posted by "pbrower2a"

> Sometimes some event determines whether a polity goes into a
> Crisis or doesn't. The Philippines could have gone into a Crisis
> had Ferdinand Marcos been recognized as the winner of the 1986
> election that he rigged. Cooler heads than his prevailed,
> especially in the Philippine military and the powerful Catholic
> Church... and dire consequences characteristic of a Crisis
> (insurrections, purges) didn't happen. Was that because the
> Philippines was unready for a Crisis? Maybe. After all, 1986 was a
> mere forty years after the last Crisis for the Philippines (World
> War II) and close to the 2T-3T cusp when libertarian tendencies
> prevail.

What you're describing here is simply impossible. No country "goes
into" a crisis period 41 years into the saeculum. The only thing
that could happen is that another country could invade, but even then
they'd fight it as a non-crisis war (as Russia did in the Great
Northern War, the Napoleonic War, and WW II). What you're talking
about is some other theory. You're not talking about generational
theory.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by 1990

I know, but we can't discriminate. All countries are created equal, even if some are more equal than others.

If you want to look at it, be my guest. But don't expect conclusive evidence.

I understand, but you need to have some idea of what year to pick, because not all countries automatically switch turnings in the same year. In 2010, Vietnam will still be 2T (a turning which probably began in the late 1990s). But in 2020, it will almost surely be 3T. In 1970, Vietnam was 4T, but in 1980 it was 1T. Thus we need to have some idea when our maps take place.



Okay, that seems fair.

Okay, it's settled then.

The collapse of the USSR could be argued to include an internal ethnic crisis war (Chechnya, with a climax around 1999), rebellion (1991 coup), high instability throughout Yeltsin's reign, coup (1991 coup again), reform (both under Gorby and Yeltsin), and miscellaneous (economic collapse).

Well it would just be rebellion and internal ethnic crisis war, since they occurred at two different times, and the rest are lesser categories. As I mentioned, anything that falls after the first three aren't necessarily Crises. The USSR will be revisited, I'm sure.

The list I pointed above was simply a method of categorization for events I had already determined were Crises. I'm not saying a coup must be a 4T. Believe me, if this were the case there would be no pattern at all. The categorization is an attempt to increase my understanding of what a crisis should entail, as well as something that gets my crisis list in some place.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

What you're describing here is simply impossible. No country "goes
into" a crisis period 41 years into the saeculum. The only thing
that could happen is that another country could invade, but even then
they'd fight it as a non-crisis war (as Russia did in the Great
Northern War, the Napoleonic War, and WW II). What you're talking
about is some other theory. You're not talking about generational
theory.

Sincerely,

John

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

Things can spiral out of control irrespective of the desires of humanity. That most often happens in a Crisis era -- for obvious reasons.

What of an "War of the Worlds" or "Independence Day" scenario? A supervolcano eruption? A nearby supernova that shreds the ozone layer? A new Black Plague? The impact of a giant meteor or comet?

On a smaller scale, does the phase of history that a small and defenseless country like Denmark or Estonia or a vulnerable colony like British Malaysia matter if some gangster neighbor decides to muscle in with overwhelming force and utter surprise? 1T, 2T, 3T, or 4T, no small country stood much of a chance against a thug like H, S, or T. To be sure, economic distress and political chaos of a 4T make sociopathic leaders more likely to take over major powers, trivialize the lives of innocent people, and initiate aggression wars of supreme destructiveness.

If anything, my citation of the "People Power" revolution in the Philippines may better illustrate your contention that Big Blowups in history are far less likely to happen at a 2T/3T cusp than in a 4T when the hotheads (reactionaries and revolutionaries) make moderate reformers irrelevant. Perhaps the times ensured that the military, economic, and clerical Establishment in the Philippines had no use for Ferdinand Marcos. I am convinced that had Marcos not fled, then the military would have ousted him forcefully -- much as the Romanian military turned on Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in 1989 when he failed to make a graceful exit from the political scene.

Fifteen years later such might not have been the same. I can imagine disgruntled people turning to any insurgency in the desperation to force change and the military, economic, and clerical establishment being so dependent upon the survival of the nasty order for their own corrupt privilege and survival that they would tolerate any harshness against opponents.

Originally Posted by "pbrower2a"

> Things can spiral out of control irrespective of the desires of
> humanity. That most often happens in a Crisis era -- for obvious
> reasons.

> What of an "War of the Worlds" or "Independence Day" scenario? A
> supervolcano eruption? A nearby supernova that shreds the ozone
> layer? A new Black Plague? The impact of a giant meteor or comet?

You have to understand the role of panic. Masses of people panic
during a crisis era, and that's what leads to a crisis war. People
who have lived through a crisis war do not panic for a second time.
They've learned their lesson. That's why another crisis war is
impossible as long as those people are still around and in charge.

Mass panic and hysteria can occur at any time among young people.
Good examples are Salem Witch trials and girls getting hysterical
over Frank Sinatra or the Beatles. But it's only in a crisis era
(or a late Unraveling era) that panic can lead to a crisis war.

Orson Welles' 1938 radio adaptation of H. G. Wells' story, <i>War of
the Worlds</i> is a good example of mass hysteria, but remember that
it occurred during a crisis era. I've written about this before:

Today's America is like 1938 America in many ways. In both cases
it's a generational Crisis era. Today American's are anxious about
terrorism and the economy.

Americans were also very anxious in 1938, as they were still in the
depths of the Great Depression. Radios were selling at a record
pace, as Hitler was rallying his forces in Europe, having already
taken control of the Sudetenland area in Czechoslovakia. On the other
side of the world, the Japanese had invaded China and were in the
process of taking over. Many Americans were extremely anxious about
war.

In this atmosphere, the radio program appeared to be a music program
interrupted by news bulletins reporting on an invasion of Martians in
cities around the country. Although announcements during the program
informed listeners that it was fiction, tens or hundreds of thousands
of listeners panicked, believing that a real invasion was taking
place. A substantial minority believed that it was a German
invasion rather than a Martian invasion.

This is a good example of mass hysteria, because it illustrates how
large masses of people can react irrationally to threats of war during
crisis periods. If that much panic occurred among a relatively few
listeners to a radio program describing a fictional event, imagine how
much greater the panic would have been if the story had been about a
REAL German or Japanese invasion.

Originally Posted by "pbrower2a"

> On a smaller scale, does the phase of history that a small and
> defenseless country like Denmark or Estonia or a vulnerable colony
> like British Malaysia matter if some gangster neighbor decides to
> muscle in with overwhelming force and utter surprise? 1T, 2T, 3T,
> or 4T, no small country stood much of a chance against a thug like
> H, S, or T. To be sure, economic distress and political chaos of a
> 4T make sociopathic leaders more likely to take over major powers,
> trivialize the lives of innocent people, and initiate aggression
> wars of supreme destructiveness.

If a small defenseless country in 1T or 2T is invaded by a gangster
neighbor, they won't fight it as a crisis war. They'll retreat if
possible, hide in the woods, pick their battles carefully, use
diplomatic and political pressure, and so forth. It's still war, but
it's a completely different kind of response.

What you ought to do is think about some of the examples you're
talking about and examine how these societies conduct war. I've
given several examples on my web site.

A good place to start is the chapter on Tolstoy's War and Peace in my
first book. It shows how Russia beat Napoleon by retreating. It's
an excellent example.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...0.book.tolstoy

Another excellent example is last summer's Lebanon war between Israel
and Hizbullah. Israel fought the war in a "hot" crisis era style,
while Hizbollah fought the war in a "cool" awakening era style; the
Lebanese public completely stayed out of it, also an awakening era
style. (I believe that if Lebanon had been in a crisis era at the
time, then the Mideast would be at full-scale war by now.)

** Aftermath of Lebanese war: The winners and losers

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e060906#e060906

What you have to think about is the essential differences in behavior
between people fighting in crisis and non-crisis wars. War can come
at any time; a society might even be exterminated by war at any time.
But issue is not how the OTHER side fights, or who gets exterminated.
The issue is how the people in question fight, and they will fight
quite differently in crisis and non-crisis wars.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Things can spiral out of control irrespective of the desires of humanity. That most often happens in a Crisis era -- for obvious reasons.

What of an "War of the Worlds" or "Independence Day" scenario? A supervolcano eruption? A nearby supernova that shreds the ozone layer? A new Black Plague? The impact of a giant meteor or comet?

On a smaller scale, does the phase of history that a small and defenseless country like Denmark or Estonia or a vulnerable colony like British Malaysia matter if some gangster neighbor decides to muscle in with overwhelming force and utter surprise? 1T, 2T, 3T, or 4T, no small country stood much of a chance against a thug like H, S, or T. To be sure, economic distress and political chaos of a 4T make sociopathic leaders more likely to take over major powers, trivialize the lives of innocent people, and initiate aggression wars of supreme destructiveness.

If anything, my citation of the "People Power" revolution in the Philippines may better illustrate your contention that Big Blowups in history are far less likely to happen at a 2T/3T cusp than in a 4T when the hotheads (reactionaries and revolutionaries) make moderate reformers irrelevant. Perhaps the times ensured that the military, economic, and clerical Establishment in the Philippines had no use for Ferdinand Marcos. I am convinced that had Marcos not fled, then the military would have ousted him forcefully -- much as the Romanian military turned on Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in 1989 when he failed to make a graceful exit from the political scene.

Fifteen years later such might not have been the same. I can imagine disgruntled people turning to any insurgency in the desperation to force change and the military, economic, and clerical establishment being so dependent upon the survival of the nasty order for their own corrupt privilege and survival that they would tolerate any harshness against opponents.

The most vivid science-fictional picture of the "Independence Day" scenario squared and cubed is Steve Stirling's "Dies the Fire" series, in which (he does rationalize it) all ability to use any sort of power other than mechanical or simple fuel-burning fails, due to what people promptly assume is enemy action by very haghly advanced whatevers. Huge population crash, all sorts of chaos and nastiness, and -

GenX steps into the leadership role absolutely.
The cycle resets with the first post-Change-born generation.

An implied premature Crisis is shown in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series as part of the background. Nomad-gen Piotr Vorkosigan is 19 when the far more advanced Cetagandans invade - and ends up one of the youngest generals in their history. Genocidal fury? They murder half-Cetagandan babies and leave them in the fields for the invading soldiers to find! The series hero Miles, BTW, is a totally classic Late Silent.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Today's America is like 1938 America in many ways. In both cases
it's a generational Crisis era. Today American's are anxious about
terrorism and the economy.

Americans were also very anxious in 1938, as they were still in the
depths of the Great Depression. Radios were selling at a record
pace, as Hitler was rallying his forces in Europe, having already
taken control of the Sudetenland area in Czechoslovakia. On the other
side of the world, the Japanese had invaded China and were in the
process of taking over. Many Americans were extremely anxious about
war.

Today's america resembles 1928 america much more than 1938 america. First we have an intact world economy similar to 1928. In 1938 the world economy was in a shambles and we were desperately trying to get out of the depression. As for nazi germany buildups and japanese wars, nothing analogous has taken place. China's military forces are still largely obsolete and unable to take on modern US forces. There has not been any full scale invasions analagous to manchuria 1931, ethiopia 1935, spanish civil war 1936 china 1937 etc. The equivalent today would be for example, a chinese invasion of southeast asia and later india, an iranian invasion of iraq, etc. There has been no collective goverment actions akin to the new deal. Any attempt at decisive government action incurs stiff opposition and gridlock as in the 1920's and in the 2000's ,but unlike the 1930's when effective programs actually were able to be inacted. Finally it is 62 years since the end of world war II crisis. Same as 1927 which was 62 years after the civil war crisis ended. 1945 + 62 = 2007 compared to the civil war 1865 + 62 = 1927. Finally the young adult age bracket still has more nomads than heroes. The GI generation started in 1901 the millies 1981 (I prefer that start date rather than S&H's 1982), here the oldest civics were 26 years old in 1927, they are 26 years old in 2007. The Sum of all this info suggest that we're still (late) 3T.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Today's america resembles 1928 america much more than 1938 america. First we have an intact world economy similar to 1928. In 1938 the world economy was in a shambles and we were desperately trying to get out of the depression. As for nazi germany buildups and japanese wars, nothing analogous has taken place. China's military forces are still largely obsolete and unable to take on modern US forces. There has not been any full scale invasions analagous to manchuria 1931, ethiopia 1935, spanish civil war 1936 china 1937 etc. The equivalent today would be for example, a chinese invasion of southeast asia and later india, an iranian invasion of iraq, etc. There has been no collective goverment actions akin to the new deal. Any attempt at decisive government action incurs stiff opposition and gridlock as in the 1920's and in the 2000's ,but unlike the 1930's when effective programs actually were able to be inacted. Finally it is 62 years since the end of world war II crisis. Same as 1927 which was 62 years after the civil war crisis ended. 1945 + 62 = 2007 compared to the civil war 1865 + 62 = 1927. Finally the young adult age bracket still has more nomads than heroes. The GI generation started in 1901 the millies 1981 (I prefer that start date rather than S&H's 1982), here the oldest civics were 26 years old in 1927, they are 26 years old in 2007. The Sum of all this info suggest that we're still (late) 3T.

Agreed. The 1990s were not equivalent to the 1920s, they were much more like the 1910s. Like the '10s, the '90s were increasingly indulgent, cynical, and materialistic, but lacked the severity and thorough pessimism of a late 3T; there was also some small remaining idealism surrounding movements of the last 2T that survived into the '90s, a spiritual preoccupation that is now dead and gone (at least until the next 2T). Remember that environmentalism and feminism were still considered of the utmost importance when I was little. Now no one seems to even recycle anymore, and women are quickly being relegated to lower status again. I'm not sure Sex and the City or Ally McBeal would make it to the airwaves today.

No, this decade has reeked of '20s roar, without the cool music. The real American 4T is not on yet, even if it has been catalyzed.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You have to understand the role of panic. Masses of people panic
during a crisis era, and that's what leads to a crisis war. People
who have lived through a crisis war do not panic for a second time.
They've learned their lesson. That's why another crisis war is
impossible as long as those people are still around and in charge.

Mass panic and hysteria can occur at any time among young people.
Good examples are Salem Witch trials and girls getting hysterical
over Frank Sinatra or the Beatles. But it's only in a crisis era
(or a late Unraveling era) that panic can lead to a crisis war.

Of course. But the manias over Frank Sinatra and the Beatles did no harm.

Orson Welles' 1938 radio adaptation of H. G. Wells' story, <i>War of
the Worlds</i> is a good example of mass hysteria, but remember that
it occurred during a crisis era. I've written about this before:

Today's America is like 1938 America in many ways. In both cases
it's a generational Crisis era. Today American's are anxious about
terrorism and the economy.

If anything, this is more like 1927 than 1938. The generational Constellation is much the same, as one would expect late in a 3T. The leadership that we now have can hardly be compared to FDR. Dubya looks more like a throwback to the bad leadership of the Harding/Coolidge administration than like what one expects in a Crisis Era. We are -- like then -- about sixty years from the prior Crisis. Wild speculation is the norm in economics. Disparities of income are analogous to those of the late 1920s, when workers lost ground despite rising productivity and technological change.

Concerns about terrorism? That's no bigger than the concern that the American establishment had in the 1920s about "anarchists" and "radicals". Concern about the economy is mostly "buy in before it's too late"... which suggests an impending Great Panic. To be sure there was no nasty war going on elsewhere -- but without the war Dubya would be a good parallel for elitism like Coolidge and corruption like Harding. The first decade of the new millennium looks much more like the 1920s than like the 1930s.

1938 was very different from 1928... youth were far more tolerant of regimentation. There had been a great Stock Market Crash... and a partial recovery for much of the economy. The great economic disparities of the 1920s had been muted to some extent.

In 1938 the world scene had become very dangerous. The Antichrist had seized power in Germany and had begun to follow Mussolini and the Japanese thug leadership in aggression against 'weak' neighbors. Who is the Hitler of our time -- the one who has transformed a misunderstood democracy into a totalitarian menace?

If anything, the biggest aggressor these days is Dubya, who lied to get America into a war of his choosing. That's not quite as dangerous as some other scenarios; we don't have full-blown fascism here, and it has yet to appear in such places as India, Indonesia, or Brazil, countries that I consider most likely to take the role of Germany in the 1930s. But even at that, the rise of Hitler was no certainty in 1928.

Americans were also very anxious in 1938, as they were still in the
depths of the Great Depression. Radios were selling at a record
pace, as Hitler was rallying his forces in Europe, having already
taken control of the Sudetenland area in Czechoslovakia. On the other
side of the world, the Japanese had invaded China and were in the
process of taking over. Many Americans were extremely anxious about
war.

Radios were also selling at a record pace in the late 1920s. Do I-Pods and cell phones suggest much the same? I don't think so.

The late 1930s were a clear improvement over the late 1930s. FDR had backed the banks and the political system had imposed major reforms upon business. Organized labor that had been dormant in the 1920s had been very active in the 1930s. Organized labor has not been as weak in America since the 1920s, the last time in which it had largely faded away as a political influence. The mass media had largely been sanitized to 'family friendliness' by the late 1930s; the mass media of our time (except for that made for children) is as depraved as ever -- again an analogue to the late 1920s.

In this atmosphere, the radio program appeared to be a music program
interrupted by news bulletins reporting on an invasion of Martians in
cities around the country. Although announcements during the program
informed listeners that it was fiction, tens or hundreds of thousands
of listeners panicked, believing that a real invasion was taking
place. A substantial minority believed that it was a German
invasion rather than a Martian invasion.

This is a good example of mass hysteria, because it illustrates how
large masses of people can react irrationally to threats of war during
crisis periods. If that much panic occurred among a relatively few
listeners to a radio program describing a fictional event, imagine how
much greater the panic would have been if the story had been about a
REAL German or Japanese invasion.

Ask me about some analogous panic in 2018 (give or take three years on either side) when some virtual reality looks like a menace to America.

If a small defenseless country in 1T or 2T is invaded by a gangster
neighbor, they won't fight it as a crisis war. They'll retreat if
possible, hide in the woods, pick their battles carefully, use
diplomatic and political pressure, and so forth. It's still war, but
it's a completely different kind of response.

What if there is no retreat except to the torture chamber, the show trial, the slave labor Gulag, or the firing squad in some cellar? The aggressor is usually far better organized than his victim. Some people might escape with their lives... but few get the chance.

What you ought to do is think about some of the examples you're
talking about and examine how these societies conduct war. I've
given several examples on my web site.

A good place to start is the chapter on Tolstoy's War and Peace in my
first book. It shows how Russia beat Napoleon by retreating. It's
an excellent example.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...0.book.tolstoy

Another excellent example is last summer's Lebanon war between Israel
and Hizbullah. Israel fought the war in a "hot" crisis era style,
while Hizbollah fought the war in a "cool" awakening era style; the
Lebanese public completely stayed out of it, also an awakening era
style. (I believe that if Lebanon had been in a crisis era at the
time, then the Mideast would be at full-scale war by now.)

What you have to think about is the essential differences in behavior
between people fighting in crisis and non-crisis wars. War can come
at any time; a society might even be exterminated by war at any time.
But issue is not how the OTHER side fights, or who gets exterminated.
The issue is how the people in question fight, and they will fight
quite differently in crisis and non-crisis wars.

This time almost every one of the likely major players in the Crisis is at or near the 3T/4T cusp. The United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, and practically every country in Europe had its last Crisis end about sixty years ago. Korea, quite possibly the most dangerous flashpoint of our time, had its last Crisis fifty-five years ago... and a weak settlement. You may think that the Soviet Union waged its Great patriotic War as a 'mid-Crisis' war because of the timing -- but I see a war waged with genocidal ferocity by both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. So Russia's last Crisis ended on V-E Day.

The biggest exceptions are Iran and Bangladesh. I concede that it would be sheer folly to wage war in Bangladesh because of the topography; if underground fighters don't get an invader, then tigers, crocodiles, and snakes will.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt and Nathaniel,



I just really want to say how blown away I am with the work that you
guys are doing. I just wish I had the time to participate more. For
two kids in high school to have done what you've done -- especially
the in-depth analytic work - is really amazing. You've taken no
short cuts. This is graduate school level work, and when you're done
with the written document your work could qualify for a Master's
thesis. Congratulations!

Sincerely,

John

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

I agree. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to go through and reanalyze and challenge your classifications of many of the countries. But, it's obvious you two have done some heavy lifting.

I think we need some better visualization methods.
As i may have mentioned before, I think we need to be able to see where within a Turning a given country is....i thought maybe gradient shading or something like that work.....and in fact would correspond better to generational time passage which are a gradient of change......
And within that notion, it would be interesting to develop a visual metaphor so we could see whether different countries are moving closer or further in sync over time. I would suspect that at various saecula there were wider or narrower variances between countries.

And this brings me to the next issue:
We need to have sub-political border maps.....ethno-liguistic-sectarian-endogamous caste divisions would be helpful as well so we could watch these dynamics as nations form out of clans and tribes and mass migrations to form towns and cities, and as they break apart through ethnic cleansing, annihilations, invasions/colonialism and are spliced onto other population groups.

These issues are highlighted in more recent times' importance when dealing with the Global South since their nationhoods, in many cases, are much more recently crystallized.

Although clearly these processes went on for many nations in Europe long ago (5 saeculums previously in many cases), these radical restructurings of nations have been happening over the last saeculum or two in Africa and are still relatively recently in parts of Latin America and for parts of Asia.

I think when we look deeper we will see points in time where the cities of various nations are out of sync with their rural populations, and of course whole regions which are out of sync with the rest of the people within the political border, and which may be in sync with others outside of those borders.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> Today's america resembles 1928 america much more than 1938
> america. First we have an intact world economy similar to 1928. In
> 1938 the world economy was in a shambles and we were desperately
> trying to get out of the depression. As for nazi germany buildups
> and japanese wars, nothing analogous has taken place. China's
> military forces are still largely obsolete and unable to take on
> modern US forces. There has not been any full scale invasions
> analagous to manchuria 1931, ethiopia 1935, spanish civil war 1936
> china 1937 etc. The equivalent today would be for example, a
> chinese invasion of southeast asia and later india, an iranian
> invasion of iraq, etc. There has been no collective goverment
> actions akin to the new deal. Any attempt at decisive government
> action incurs stiff opposition and gridlock as in the 1920's and
> in the 2000's ,but unlike the 1930's when effective programs
> actually were able to be inacted. Finally it is 62 years since the
> end of world war II crisis. Same as 1927 which was 62 years after
> the civil war crisis ended. 1945 + 62 = 2007 compared to the civil
> war 1865 + 62 = 1927. Finally the young adult age bracket still
> has more nomads than heroes. The GI generation started in 1901 the
> millies 1981 (I prefer that start date rather than S&H's 1982),
> here the oldest civics were 26 years old in 1927, they are 26
> years old in 2007. The Sum of all this info suggest that we're
> still (late) 3T.

I see your point. And we haven't had any recent slave rebellions,
nor have we had anyone throw any high-taxed agricultural products
into any large harbor. So we must be farther behind that anyone
thought.

Trying to compare one crisis era with another on an event-for-event
basis doesn't make any sense at all.

You're making an unstated assumption that if something analogous to
Japan's invasion of Manchuria were to take place today, then a crisis
war would still be ten years off. But that assumption is false
because the world is very different today.

Japan was able to invade Manchuria without retribution, except for a
vote by the League of Nations. That's why it didn't lead to war for
ten years.

To take one of the examples you gave, if China invaded India, then a
world war would be triggered immediately, since both Russia and the US
have defense agreements with India. So that's the first flaw in your
reasoning.

The second flaw in your reasoning is that you overlook many events
that ARE analogous to the last crisis era. We had a Nasdaq crash in
2000, and we're having a housing bubble crash right now, with many
similarities to the 1930s depression. There's the Iraq war, which is
now in its 17th year. There's the Afghan war, now in it's 6th year.
And there's the Darfur war. You can't just ignore these because they
aren't letter-for-letter identical to the wars of the 1930s. And
China's armed forces may not be up to US standards, but they're far
from obsolete. So that's the second flaw in your reasoning.

Next, related to the first point, you're overlooking a major
difference between today and the 1930s: interlocking treaties.
Unlike the 1930s, today we have a "least common denominator" kind of
effect, where a regional war almost anywhere in the world would
spiral into a world war. That's the third flaw in your reasoning.

The fact is that the kind of panic that could trigger a world war
could happen at any time. There are tens of thousands of regional
rebellions in China, and even the Chinese Premier says that
China is "unsteady, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable."

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070322#e070322

The event-for-event comparison that you're making has absolutely no
meaning whatsoever. Crisis eras don't work like that.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This time almost every one of the likely major players in the Crisis is at or near the 3T/4T cusp. The United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, and practically every country in Europe had its last Crisis end about sixty years ago.... I see a war waged with genocidal ferocity by both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. So Russia's last Crisis ended on V-E Day.

You see that, do you? From all the way over there?

Funny how the rest of the social moments Russia has experienced for like the past 200 years don't line up with that one. But that's the War Cycle fallacy for you...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You see that, do you? From all the way over there?

Funny how the rest of the social moments Russia has experienced for like the past 200 years don't line up with that one. But that's the War Cycle fallacy for you...

Mr. Xenakis contends that World War II, a "Crisis War" for Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Japan, China, and India was not a Crisis War for Russia because Russia's real Crisis ended after the end of the Russian Civil War and that Russia (USSR) was in a mid-Crisis time during World War II. He is convinced that a country could not experience two Crisis Wars thirty years apart.

I explain Russia's situation as three waves of Crises, one resulting from a social blow-up (Russian Revolution and Bolshevik-White war), one resulting from the madness of a despot (collectivization of Soviet agriculture followed by the Great Purge), and then one imposed from the outside (what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War).

I go by the Reset as the indicator of the end of the Crisis -- the crystallization of a new order that precludes many political or ideological possibilities and a post-Crisis stability begins. That's after the governments decide that things are settled and that it's time to pick up the pieces.

Originally Posted by Nomad64

> I agree. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to go through and
> reanalyze and challenge your classifications of many of the
> countries. But, it's obvious you two have done some heavy
> lifting.

> I think we need some better visualization methods. As i may have
> mentioned before, I think we need to be able to see where within a
> Turning a given country is....i thought maybe gradient shading or
> something like that work.....and in fact would correspond better
> to generational time passage which are a gradient of change......
> And within that notion, it would be interesting to develop a
> visual metaphor so we could see whether different countries are
> moving closer or further in sync over time. I would suspect that
> at various saecula there were wider or narrower variances between
> countries.

> And this brings me to the next issue: We need to have
> sub-political border maps.....ethno-liguistic-sectarian-endogamous
> caste divisions would be helpful as well so we could watch these
> dynamics as nations form out of clans and tribes and mass
> migrations to form towns and cities, and as they break apart
> through ethnic cleansing, annihilations, invasions/colonialism and
> are spliced onto other population groups.

My dream project for several years is to create a computerized "world
model," incorporating the timelines of every country, clan, and
tribe, and every ethno-liguistic-sectarian-endogamous caste division
in the world into a single model. I know exactly how to do it, and
it would have very powerful analytical and predictive capabilities.
It would be the most significant development ever in analytical
history. It would have applications in government, education and
business. I estimate that I need a budget of $2-5 million to get it
developed. Do you know anyone who'd like to fund it?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by "pbrower2a"

> I go by the Reset as the indicator of the end of the Crisis -- the
> crystallization of a new order that precludes many political or
> ideological possibilities and a post-Crisis stability begins.
> That's after the governments decide that things are settled and
> that it's time to pick up the pieces.

This concept of a "reset" is turning into the most chic of designer
generational components, sort of the Paris Hilton of generational
theory, even though it occurs extremely rarely in history.

A 1T reset could not have occurred in Russia after WW II simply
because of the country's huge geographical and population size.

But even if it did, that would still not make WW II a crisis war. A
"reset" can occur ONLY to 1T, never to a 4T or any other turning. A
reset to a 4T is so absurd that it doesn't even make sense.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This concept of a "reset" is turning into the most chic of designer
generational components, sort of the Paris Hilton of generational
theory, even though it occurs extremely rarely in history.

A 1T reset could not have occurred in Russia after WW II simply
because of the country's huge geographical and population size.

But even if it did, that would still not make WW II a crisis war. A
"reset" can occur ONLY to 1T, never to a 4T or any other turning. A
reset to a 4T is so absurd that it doesn't even make sense.

Russia never experienced a Reset between 1922 and the end of World War II. Well -- not one that two tyrants allowed (Stalin and Hitler). A Reset was inconsistent with Marxist-Leninist ideology in view of the concept of "permanent revolution".

In late 1945 the Soviet political system finally solidified. Does anyone have any question that history suddenly slowed down? There was just too much wartime damage to undo, and there were too many scores to settle. Nothing big was going to change in the Soviet system for forty years -- half a cycle.

Even the attempt to spread the Soviet political system to central and southeastern Europe was done on the cheap.

The Berlin Crisis (1948) was a Crisis event for Germany and one of the last; it would decide the situation in eastern Germany for forty years. Communist takeovers from Poland to Bulgaria were the last Crisis events in those countries in the aftermath of World War II. But none of those local Crises were Crises for the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I explain Russia's situation as three waves of Crises, one resulting from a social blow-up (Russian Revolution and Bolshevik-White war), one resulting from the madness of a despot (collectivization of Soviet agriculture followed by the Great Purge), and then one imposed from the outside (what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War).

I go by the Reset as the indicator of the end of the Crisis -- the crystallization of a new order that precludes many political or ideological possibilities and a post-Crisis stability begins. That's after the governments decide that things are settled and that it's time to pick up the pieces.

You'd be incorrect in not seeing that your 'Reset' occurred in the very early Stalin years -- that the course of Russian society was at that time set, and that the externally-imposed events of the following 20-plus years made not the slightest significant change to the order that came out of the Revolutionary 4T.

I'm not terribly certain how Xenakis comes by his argument (frankly, I thought he was of the WWI-was-Russia's-4T school). I go by on-the-ground evidence, myself. Considering the dearth of actual information that made it over to the West about what was going on in Russia during the time of the USSR, I'd doubt that there is any non-local source that could possible hold much credibility.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Berlin Crisis (1948) was a Crisis event for Germany...

That's absolutely crazy. You don't have the vaguest idea what
a generational crisis is, do you?

John

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In late 1945 the Soviet political system finally solidified.

See now. This is just flatly incorrect. The Russian social system as such budged truly not a bit over the wartime years. Russian people underwent tough times, but the society that celebrated victory over the invaders was much the same as the society that rang in the 1930s. In fact, it was scant years after 1945, the Soviet system underwent a major tremor of sorts as the 1T guard (personified by Stalin & crew) passed out a mere 8-9 years later. But that was the beginning of a 2T...

Originally Posted by 1990

Agreed. The 1990s were not equivalent to the 1920s, they were much more like the 1910s. Like the '10s, the '90s were increasingly indulgent, cynical, and materialistic, but lacked the severity and thorough pessimism of a late 3T; there was also some small remaining idealism surrounding movements of the last 2T that survived into the '90s, a spiritual preoccupation that is now dead and gone (at least until the next 2T). Remember that environmentalism and feminism were still considered of the utmost importance when I was little. Now no one seems to even recycle anymore, and women are quickly being relegated to lower status again. I'm not sure Sex and the City or Ally McBeal would make it to the airwaves today.

No, this decade has reeked of '20s roar, without the cool music. The real American 4T is not on yet, even if it has been catalyzed.

I too remember that 2Tish movements and ethos continued in a watered-down form into core 3T of the 1990's. I remember when my parents would often caution us kids not to litter, and to recycle. My parents one year (I think it was 1996)took us to a community service event for earth day, which was itself a 2T era construct. These days no one seems to do that anymore.