Matt, was my U.S. country study at all what you had in mind?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Take a look at what Neil said. I made the point about the
destruction of the Ottoman empire and the Istanbul Caliphate as being
the seminal event of the century, and that all the countries in the
region were formed out of pieces of the Ottoman empire. He said,
"What about Israel," and I responded to that. I don't think he
disagrees.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...7&postcount=43

Originally Posted by Neil Howe, July 2

What about the Islamic world? Let skip outliers (e.g., in Indonesia) and focus on the Islamic core: the Arab world, Iran, Turkey, and Muslim South Asia (including Pakistan). We have argued at length elsewhere that this region has been, at least since the 1930s, on a cycle that lags behind ours by about 15-20 years—that is, nearly but not quite a full turning. Our first turning (from the late 1940s to early 1960s) was their fourth turning, with (through much of this region) sudden independence from colonial rule and the creation of new states and governments. The leaders who came of age (pan-Arabists, Baathists, et al) were all great believers in science, modernism, and secular progress though big institutions. Our 2T was their 1T. This was, for example, the era of the Shah’s “White Revolution” (infrastructure and land reform) and of oil development.

And yes, our 3T has basically overlapped with their 2T. The initial date, the epicenter, of their 2T is easy to locate: 1979. That was the year of the Islamist revolution in Iran, of the mujahideen’s mobilization against the Russians in Afghanistan, the huge terrorist attack on Mecca—setting off a whole chain reaction or radicalism, assassination, terror, cultural assertion, and political instability that scholars today call “the Islamic Awakening.” (Hey, our terminology works.) Like all awakenings, it left political, economic, and social institutions in a state of unruly disarray, or at best left them unimproved, but totally recast the culture and mindset of these societies—ripping them our of their secular complacency and filling them a reborn and heartfelt zeal to serve Allah. This was not just a 2T, but probably one of most spectacular and consequential 2T’s in the Muslim Mideast in many centuries. Chronologically, Iran may have been slightly ahead of most of its Arab neighbors. This would cast Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah as first-wave prophets (born in the last 1950s); their radical peers tend to be younger, not older.

Today, then, with America on the cusp of a 4T, the Islamic world is just starting to enter a 3T. On the positive side (for the West), this means that mere radicalism and defiance of convention no longer seems fresh. Huge theatrical acts of terror, dripping with symbolism, may no longer seem as attractive. One sees, in Iran especially, signs of a “reactive” Nomad generation just starting to come of age—attracted to personal freedom, commerce, individuating technology, and U.S. pop culture. On the negative side, with the entire elder-built establishment de-legitimized, it may be an era of spreading violence, revolts, coups, fragmention, and political anarchy. And with Prophets like Ahmadinejad entering leadership age, some may leverage the pervasive instability in order to transform themselves into dangerous strongmen, threatening the rest of the world no longer as youthful terrorists but as iron-willed heads of state. Pakistan has yet to acquire a leader of this generation. What happens when it does?

There's really no other possible interpretation anyway. The
destruction of the Ottoman empire cannot be anything but a 4T event,
so the 1980s had to be another 4T. The Islamic resurgence actually
started in the 1940s, which WAS an Awakening era.

I know the Ottomans held on to their Middle East territory in the end, but what did it encompass? Pretty much Iraq and Syria/Lebanon by that point, I think.

It just so happens that countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia were on a close timeline with the Ottomans. Of course, there are no coincidences in this sort of thing.

WTF? My map link reverted to the old map!

Originally Posted by 1990

Matt, was my U.S. country study at all what you had in mind?

Yes, it was excellent. I actually somehow didn't read the Millenial one until now (weird), but it looks very good.

I think you have to mention WWI for the Lost. Other than that, great!

You still haven't answered my question on Mexico.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Yes, it was excellent. I actually somehow didn't read the Millenial one until now (weird), but it looks very good.

I think you have to mention WWI for the Lost. Other than that, great!

You still haven't answered my question on Mexico.

The Mexico 4T before the Revolution (in my mind) was the War of Independence. I date that 4T as 1808-1829, with a Regeneracy in 1810 and a climax in 1822.

Now what is up with my map link? It's reverted to the old map, and the FTP site for GD is no longer working. Help, John!

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...7&postcount=43

> I know the Ottomans held on to their Middle East territory in the
> end, but what did it encompass? Pretty much Iraq and Syria/Lebanon
> by that point, I think.

> It just so happens that countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia were
> on a close timeline with the Ottomans. Of course, there are no
> coincidences in this sort of thing.

You're referencing the message that I responded to. Take a look at
what happened after that.

The countries of eastern Europe and the Mideast have generally
synchronized over time, just as the countries of western Europe have
generally synchronized over time.

The diagram below is out of date, but it conveys the idea.

Sincerely,

John

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

The FTP site is fixed. For some reason my old map appears in Firefox, but the new one appears in Internet Explorer.

Matt, are we to change our assessment of Middle Eastern countries based on what S&H are saying? A 4T from ~1947-1967 (catalyzed by the Arab-Israeli War of 1947-1949 and resolving with the Six-Day War) would explain some outstanding questions.

EDIT: Map problem fixed. Mexico will be written up tonight or tomorrow. Am still curious about this Middle East debate though.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

You're referencing the message that I responded to. Take a look at
what happened after that.

OK you're really confusing me. Here are the messages in references to the Middle East.

1) Roadbldr asks about Israel and the Middle-East
2) Tristan mentions that in a discussion with Howe that the ME is 3T
3) Neil Howe says the Middle-East is 3T
4) Tristan asks about Israel
5) You say the Middle-East is not 3T.
6) Howe says Israel is a couple years behind us
7) You agree with this statement

They choose not to address your assertion in #5. I have no idea why; my best guess would be that they disagree, but don't have the reasoning fully developed. Regardless, what you said was contrary to their statement, and while they didn't refute what you said, they didn't accept it either.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> They choose not to address your assertion in #5. I have no idea
> why; my best guess would be that they disagree, but don't have the
> reasoning fully developed. Regardless, what you said was contrary
> to their statement, and while they didn't refute what you said,
> they didn't accept it either.

You know, we've gone over this a million times. They made a
statement based on no evidence at all except for a vague reference to
the Islamic resurgence, and statements about nations being formed in
the 1950s.

The evidence they gave was completely wrong. The Islamic resurgence
began in the 1940s, not the 1960s; the nations were formed in the
1920s, not the 1950s; and they didn't even consider the Ottoman
destruction, which is the seminal event. They chose not to respond
to any of that, and they presented no other evidence beyond some sort
of vague "feeling."

Now, I can't even think of anything new to add, so make your choice.
If you think that the evidence adds up to an Awakening in the 1980s,
then believe what you want.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,



You know, we've gone over this a million times. They made a
statement based on no evidence at all except for a vague reference to
the Islamic resurgence, and statements about nations being formed in
the 1950s.

The evidence they gave was completely wrong. The Islamic resurgence
began in the 1940s, not the 1960s; the nations were formed in the
1920s, not the 1950s; and they didn't even consider the Ottoman
destruction, which is the seminal event. They chose not to respond
to any of that, and they presented no other evidence beyond some sort
of vague "feeling."

Now, I can't even think of anything new to add, so make your choice.
If you think that the evidence adds up to an Awakening in the 1980s,
then believe what you want.

Sincerely,

John

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

Oh, no. I've said that the so-called spiritual revival was manifested in genocidal violence in the 1980s, and therefore cannot be anything but a Crisis.

Originally Posted by 1990

Matt, are we to change our assessment of Middle Eastern countries based on what S&H are saying? A 4T from ~1947-1967 (catalyzed by the Arab-Israeli War of 1947-1949 and resolving with the Six-Day War) would explain some outstanding questions.

EDIT: Map problem fixed. Mexico will be written up tonight or tomorrow. Am still curious about this Middle East debate though.

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. I don't like the regional sweep of the hand. It's a cop-out. 1990 and John, please read my posts! I have never once swayed from my original view that is shown in my map.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. I don't like the regional sweep of the hand. It's a cop-out. 1990 and John, please read my posts! I have never once swayed from my original view that is shown in my map.

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought we were having an argument!

John

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. I don't like the regional sweep of the hand. It's a cop-out. 1990 and John, please read my posts! I have never once swayed from my original view that is shown in my map.

Okay, good. Frankly the idea of the Iranian Revolution sparking a regional 2T is bizarre, since the Revolution was as 4T as 4Ts come.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought we were having an argument!

John

Well no wonder I was confused!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well of course. Loads of people died, and lots of stuff was broken. But the society that won the war was practically indistinguishable -- from the inside, as well as the out -- from the one that rang in the 40s. That alone is enough to smash any pretensions of WWII as a Russian Turning event.

But that was a huge amount of death and destruction. The Soviet Union annexed Tannu-Tuva outright, regained the Kurils and South Sakhalin from Japan, and established a western border that incorporated the Baltic republics, some slices of Finland, the Kaliningrad Oblast (formerly the northen half of German East Prussia), sections of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania that had largely Belorussian or Ukrainian populations, and what would largely become Moldova.

Soviet culture became incredibly bland and conservative, but science and engineering flourished. Public life was extremely secular. Gigantic projects became the norm in industry and even housing. Except for persons seen as wartime traitors, Josef Stalin ran out of people to purge.

All that I see different from a classic 1T in the Soviet Union after 1945 were the absence of a consumer society and that little indulgence of children was possible. Soviet children born between 1945 and 1960 could not be brought up as classic Idealists as could American, British, Italian, German, French, Japanese, or even Indian or Filipino children.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But that was a huge amount of death and destruction.

And? What does this have to do with generational theory?

I've asked you a time where, relative early in the saeculum, a society has been reset to a 4T, followed by a 1T and the rest of the saeculum. You mentioned Ethiopia. I refuted that and you didn't respond.

It doesn't make sense anyway, since there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of mid-cycle cases where a nation has been invaded and its life was put on the line, and then proceeded right on schedule.

You're really stepping away from generational theory.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

And? What does this have to do with generational theory?

I've asked you a time where, relative early in the saeculum, a society has been reset to a 4T, followed by a 1T and the rest of the saeculum. You mentioned Ethiopia. I refuted that and you didn't respond.

It doesn't make sense anyway, since there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of mid-cycle cases where a nation has been invaded and its life was put on the line, and then proceeded right on schedule.

You're really stepping away from generational theory.

Check out the Ireland thread, this forum. Irish Potatoe Famine.

Sorry, pbrower2a, but your understanding of the guts of the theory are wanting. 4Ts can only last so long before the Elder Prophet generation starts fading from influence and are replaced by Elder Nomads.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Check out the Ireland thread, this forum. Irish Potatoe Famine.

The Irish Potato famine came only 47 years after the Irish Rebellion of 1798. As others have pointed out, this is not terribly early.

Daniel (the 'Liberator') O'Connell, born 1775, was clearly an Adaptive.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by David Krein

Daniel (the 'Liberator') O'Connell, born 1775, was clearly an Adaptive.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

One man does not make a generation...

But please continue.

Mexico is almost done, but I am having trouble naming the most recent generations (Heroes born during the ~1968-1988 3T and Artists - or something else - born in the Limbo turning since then).

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry, pbrower2a, but your understanding of the guts of the theory are wanting. 4Ts can only last so long before the Elder Prophet generation starts fading from influence and are replaced by Elder Nomads.

First of all, I see far more Nomad characteristics in Josef Stalin than I see Prophet characteristics, and not only because of his overwhelming evil. His diplomacy was cynical in the extreme, and he proved terribly indecisive during the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War. I see a very different character in him than I see in the more ideologically-driven early Bolsheviks. The man was thoroughly amoral in every aspect of his personal life. He could never frame any aspect of the struggle against the Third Reich except as a call to patriotism or an appeal to revenge. That sort of leadership is catastrophic in a Great Struggle/4T.

That's of course quite true in a political system that, like the United States, compartmentalizes power, limits the Executive, has civilian control of the military, has some measure of democracy or at least some human rights, and has no extra-constitutional centers of power. Under a despot the only constraint on the ability of a leadership to continue an unpopular or destructive war is the potential of a coup or a revolution -- or utter defeat. An absolute tyrant like Stalin or Hitler who can kill anyone who gets in his way can impose a Crisis at will until he is debilitated or overthrown. The tyrant almost invariably staffs every formal position of power, economic, military, judicial, police, or legislative, with flunkies who will commit any crime on his behalf.

Between 1922 and 1945 the Soviet Union did not play by the normal rules of society, just as Germany did not play by the normal rules of society between 1933 and 1945. Tyrants who can kill anyone that they want killed, can order any theft of personal or public property, and can wage war at will tend to do so.

The idea that a younger generation of leaders might supplant the flunkies of a tyrant means little because as a vacancy opens due to death or retirement of some flunky because the successor will be another flunky -- or else. Not until the tyrant dies can anything change. The personality of the tyrant does not change, and the leadership does not truly change whether the tyrant dies at 50 -- or 95. I concede that the Soviet system changed dramatically upon the death of Josef Stalin... but not until then except for choices that he made and realities imposed from outside. That people of Stalin's generation died off in the puppet Presidency, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the highest ranks of the armed forces, the economic leadership, the leadership of the secret police, and the formal judiciary and were replaced by persons from later generations changed nothing. Stalin could still order any war, any murder, any deportation, or any exaction; all that he could not dictate was success. People could be killed for their failures -- but that ensured someone else living under the Sword of Damocles while enjoying unimaginable privileges.

Such was impossible in the United States or Great Britain at the same time. Even if FDR had won one term after another while living to an extreme age, the Supreme Court and Congress would have changed, the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have changed, State governors and big-city mayors would have changed. The transfer of power on the whole from the Missionaries to the Lost and in turn GIs would have been a certainty.

It's safer to say that the USSR/Russia between the 1910s and the 1940s was a special case. The generational cycle operates differently with pathological leadership than with honorable leadership (FDR, Churchill) than with pathological leadership (Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek).

Originally Posted by 1990

Mexico is almost done, but I am having trouble naming the most recent generations (Heroes born during the ~1968-1988 3T and Artists - or something else - born in the Limbo turning since then).

If you can't find anything popular, you can always just call them the Hero generation.

I believe most of the countries we do will not have the luxury of a generational analysis (i.e. heroes, nomads etc.).