There's almost no way for the US to get through the coming 4t without Mexico's approaching 4t intertwining with it. This has never happened before.Originally Posted by 1990
And yes, it will be ugly along the way.
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 7,116
There's almost no way for the US to get through the coming 4t without Mexico's approaching 4t intertwining with it. This has never happened before.
And yes, it will be ugly along the way.
Then maybe we'll remember that we have something in common with Mexico - a border - and stop pretending Mexico is some faraway third-world nation.
It will be difficult to pick out a specific end-date. Protests can also happen in 3Ts (see Venezuela), but its a bit different since they are mostly led by Nomads.
John X. seems to think that part of the reason this time is oil money. Perhaps. You have to understand though, that two saeculums aren't enough to ask "Why does this happen in Mexico?"I will. This sounds plausible. And if so, it is worth asking why Mexico is so prone to post-Unravelings and delayed Crises. It also suggests that an eventual 4T in this country will be ugly, ugly, ugly.
Last edited by Matt1989; 09-16-2007 at 07:07 PM.
I am sure that Cuba is now 3T, and was essentially 2T in the 1990s and presumably the late 1980s at least. But closed societies - especially dictatorships and Communist countries - tend to suppress 2Ts very well (in the short run) and thus they are less readily evident than in a democracy.
True, but we're talking two saecula in a row. Perhaps the second time was due to oil money, as well as the major economic benefits of NAFTA and emigration to the U.S. (and its ensuing remittances), but shouldn't it be kinda hard to f*** up the saeculum? And twice in a row???
I don't think the saeculum can be messed up pretty easily when we hone in on the mid-cycle period. But the Crisis is different, since it takes a pretty specific reaction to a variety of events to produce it.
Long saeculums aren't so rare (look at my list)... and it only happened twice.
Dear Rick,
Here's an online definition:
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
This a fantastic reference list!! I'm blown away!!
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
This is exactly right, and explains why so many people get confused
by this.
There are three distinct but related events going on:
- The Crisis War. Historians and journalists are all over
the map in describing when a war starts and ends.
Everyone's talking about how the Darfur civil war began in 2004. Not
true. It began as tribal disputes in the 1970s, picked up as a small
regional war in the 1980s, was a continuing police action in the
1990s, and hit its regeneracy on February 26, 2003. 2004 is simply
the date that the press started to notice it.
On the other hand, they talk about the Sri Lanka civil war as
starting in 1976, which is correct. Go figure.
Everyone says the Iraq war began in 2003. Actually, it began in
1990.
When did World War II start? Americans would say, November 7, 1941.
The British would say 1939. I consider the Japanese invasion of
Manchuria in 1931 to be part of WW II. And I think that an argument
could be made that the first "shot" fired was the passage of the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930.
The Hundred Years War, which lasted 117 years, was actually several
wars. Same for the 30 years war. You could think of WW I and WW II
as being a single war, and some people do.
The only thing about a war that I've found to be almost ALWAYS
identifiable is the climax, the "raging typhoon." The regeneracy
always exists, but it's not always easily identifiable. Still, the
most accurate definition of "crisis war" would be the period of time
between the regeneracy and the climax, although if the war started 20
years earlier as low-level violence, you really have to say that.
But it's important to note that a crisis war regeneracy can begin in
the third, fourth or fifth turning.- The Fourth Turning. As you say, it's most convenient to
identify these as 20 year intervals, although I've found the first
turning to be a little shorter, and the 2nd and 3rd turnings to often
be a little longer. I usually assume that the Fourth Turning begins
55-60 years after the climax of the last crisis war.- The Crisis Era. This is a more informal term, I think. I
would define it as beginning at the earlier of the Fourth Turning and
the Crisis War, and ending with the climax of the crisis war. Thus,
while a Crisis War lasts at most 5-10 years after the regeneracy, and
often less, a Crisis Era can start many years earlier, and so last
for a longer period of time.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Nathaniel,
If you're having "writer's block" with one country, why don't you
start with some of the easier countries that you've studied, and come
back to Mexico later?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I'm confused. Could you explain "But it's important to note that a crisis war regeneracy can begin in the third, fourth or fifth turning."
I understand the 4th, and think I might understand the 5th, but am not sure how a crisis war regeneracy can start in the 3T, absent time travel. Or do you mean the sort of thing that's happening now? Could you please give me an example and let me know?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
I'm not sure, but I think he means a regeneracy can occur during what would typically be an Unraveling era.
How? Any examples, please?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that there would be an early Crisis, perhaps 50 years into the mid-cycle period.
Colombia, following the War of A Thousand Days (climax 1902), had their regeneracy shortly after the start in 1948. So this would be an early regeneracy in what should have been an Unraveling.
Okay. Thanks!
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
That's a good idea. I'd play around with a few scenarios, and if they don't seem to make sense in the narrative (this should be apparent quickly), move on to the next one. If none of them seem to work, get your mind refreshed with another. I look forward to reading about Cuba.
I needed a break after creating my list, but I'll try to knock out a couple countries before school starts.
Hey, that's pretty good. In the S&H paradigm, there is no difference between the Crisis and the Fourth Turning (that I know of), so it can get kind of confusing.
I'm using the "numbered turnings (1T)" as determining both mood and what generation will be produced, and "named turnings (Recovery)" for events. There isn't really any difference until you enter the 4T, where things can get screwy.
Since S&H make no distinction, I've been using different terminology. I've called the era between the Catalyst (or slower segue into the 4T) and the Crisis War (I've been using Catastrophe as a broader term) as a post-Unraveling era.
Not all countries have standard Crisis Wars; but those that do not, have replacements, which can come in the form of a high amount of instability (minor wars, coups) and changes. I've been calling the Catastrophe era one, as I can best describe it, that contains an unstoppable slide toward the explosive climax.
Come to think of it, this could be an alternate definition for the post-Regeneracy era, but I don't think Strauss and Howe would agree with this. So I think I'll stick with my terms.
Do these "replacements" mean unsexy 4Ts?
The commies are repressive enough to pervert (China), prevent (Soviet Union), or abort (Czechoslovakia) a 2T. If someone wants to say that eastern Europe and the Soviet Union missed out on 2Ts and went from 1T directly to 3T -- is that possible?
Does that mean a hastened 4T or a lengthened 3T? I can't quite consider the events of 1980-1992 as a Crisis in the USSR and eastern Europe.
Remember, the primary function of a 2T is to produce a Nomad Gen (and move the other Gens through the life cycle). So, technically speaking, a 2T cannot be prevented or aborted. And perverted is POV.
If your definition of sexy is equivalent to the creation of mass-produced human bacon, then yes, these "replacements" are certainly unsexy.
I'm currently working on Turkey/Ottoman Empire. I think it's especially important to go back to its origins. However, I won't be able to do a complete mid-cycle analysis (1st turning, 2nd turning etc.) for the earlier periods. That would be too much to handle.
What I am finding difficult is distinguishing between Crises and non-Crises in some of these cases. I'm finding it hard to determine the amount of energy from the population. I'm only left to show how significant the war was. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Last edited by Matt1989; 08-19-2007 at 01:30 AM.
No.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
I've had this problem all along.
If you're talking about a war that's even been remembered after a
millennium or two, then it's certain to be a crisis war. But even
that's a complicated assertion, because it might be a crisis war for
only one side and not the other.
When I was doing a summary of Vietnam, I lost track of the timeline
in the 1600s.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171248&postcount=1115
The wars in the 1400s and 1500s and 1700s were very clear, but around
1600 there were two wars that seemed to be very important. I just
left it as "further study is required." What I really think happened
is that the earlier and later crisis wars were between the North and
the South, but the two wars around 1600 were on separate North and
South timelines. That requires more research, of course, but it shows
how complicated the situation can be.
This is particularly an issue for the Ottoman Empire, which fought
wars on several fronts following the fall of Constantinople.
I've dealt with hundreds of these situations by this time, and what
I've found is that you can resolve almost any problem by checking
enough sources. Sooner or later, some historian is going to give you
all the detail you need to figure out exactly what's going on.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
The Ottoman Empire came into its existence as a Great Power in 1453 during the Renaissance and has had an ambiguous role in European history. It got entangled in most European wars and seems to have been more of an adapter of European culture and technology than any non-Western country until Japan after 1853. Until the late 19th century it dominated southeastern Europe. If anything, it seems to have adopted weapons technology more effectively than did the doomed Byzantine Empire.
I'd interpret the Balkan Wars and World War I as its terminal crisis.
I finally had Cuba almost put together when it occurred to me that something is wrong. The Ten Years' War cannot have been a Crisis, but probably a very ugly Unraveling, even if the casualty toll was higher than that of the War of Independence from 1895-98. In the end, the Ten Years' War did not result in independence. The latter war did, and was much more heroic and historic.
Then again, the public reaction to de Cespedes' freeing his slaves and calling plantation owners to rebellion was so 4T. I compare it to John Brown's raid. In an Unraveling, the feeling would have been "he's a loon, whatever". But in a Crisis, thousands of people took to arms and attempted to overthrow one of the greatest empires ever. They didn't succeed, but they tried.
But then, how could independence have been achieved in 1898 (after a bloody and internationally-watched struggle) in a 1T? When has that EVER happened? 1Ts simply don't have that kind of radical change.
