Originally Posted by 1990

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.

I vaguely remember this from when I was creating the list. Remember that there were outside influences, so you have to determine who caused what.

Consider: Maybe the Ten Years War didn't climax in 1878, but 1877 or earlier. So 1895 would be at least 17 years later, possibly 18, maybe more. 2Ts begin around this time, since 1Ts tend to be a bit shorter than the other two mid-cycle periods. By 1898, they would have been 2T, especially with the surrounding events.

Make whatever case you will. The more we look into it, the closer we'll get to the answer.

Kind of off-topic, but I didn't want to create a new thread.

http://weirdworldstuff.blogspot.com/...ged-world.html

Is it a coincidence that the majority of the photos occurred in a Crisis for the country involved?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

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

I'm going back to the Seljuks. The first identifiable Crisis I can find runs from 1064-1084 in the early stages of the Seljuk-Byzantine war.

The main problem right now is the end date for the Crisis beginning in 1511 with the power struggle that lead to the rule of Selim I (1512-1520). I don't know where to put the end date, since the wars of conquest continued with Suleiman pretty much unabated. You end it in 1520. Do you remember why you did this and do you have any supporting information?

Chile be 2T.

Chileans take to streets in anger at regime



· Hundreds arrested in clashes with police
· Economic inequality at heart of protest in capital

Jonathan Franklin in Santiago and agencies
Thursday August 30, 2007
The Guardian

Thousands of Chileans took to the streets yesterday in a burgeoning middle class revolt against the 17 years of coalition government that has ruled since the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.

Hundreds of Chileans were arrested as they approached the presidential palace. Squares in and around the palace became a chaotic mix of mounted police, riot troops and teargas. As water cannons blasted protesters, waves of students counterattacked with rocks. Burning barricades almost closed central Santiago.

Television images showed senator Alejandro Navarro, of President Michelle Bachelet's Socialist party, bleeding from the back of his head after apparently being clubbed by a police officer. The deputy interior minister, Felipe Harboe, said the incident would be investigated. Mr Navarro, who was treated in hospital, supported the protest.

"This protest will start to change things. There will be one after another," said Arturo Martinez, of United Workers Central, the trade union that organised the protest. The union is tapping into widespread anger at economic inequality in Chilean society. As riot police and ruling party politicians tried to play down the protests, the capital was filled by protesters demanding higher pensions, better public transport, subsidised housing and a halt to rising food and electricity prices.

President Bachelet initially defended her record as a progressive politician, then conceded and promised "subsidies to all" families in need and a "short-term solution" for economic inequality. "Nobody can say that my government's programmes are not fair and equitable. I will not accept questioning of my work on social justice," she said. "The solutions to these inequalities and the goal of a more equitable Chile are obtained with dialogue, maturity, work and agreements. Through this process there will be discord, but also common understanding."

While government officials tried to ignore the protests, union leaders such as Mr Martinez threatened to lay siege to Santiago by shutting down major avenues and roads leading into the city.

Throughout the day, protesters repeatedly attempted to approach the presidential palace, which late on Tuesday was briefly occupied by low-income housing residents who stormed the building. At least 30 members managed to scale the iron window grates, dangling from the palace screaming anti-government slogans.

Yesterday's protest comes after weeks of labour action, including strikes by poultry workers in southern Chile and copper miners in the north. Union leaders called the demonstrations to protest against the government's "neo-liberal" economic policies and to further the national debate about the country's minimum wage.

Salaries for workers have been at the forefront of public debate after recent statements by Bishop Alejandro Goic calling for "an ethical [minimum] wage" for Chilean workers.

Hey 1990, just wondering how it's coming. I've kind of hit a wall at this moment, but I'm going to use the weekend to try and push through it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Hey 1990, just wondering how it's coming. I've kind of hit a wall at this moment, but I'm going to use the weekend to try and push through it.

One word: college. Everything will be moving at 10% of the speed for both of us.

Originally Posted by 1990

One word: college. Everything will be moving at 10% of the speed for both of us.

I'm aware of this fact. I will try to do most of my stuff on the weekend.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm going back to the Seljuks. The first identifiable Crisis I can find runs from 1064-1084 in the early stages of the Seljuk-Byzantine war.

The main problem right now is the end date for the Crisis beginning in 1511 with the power struggle that lead to the rule of Selim I (1512-1520). I don't know where to put the end date, since the wars of conquest continued with Suleiman pretty much unabated. You end it in 1520. Do you remember why you did this and do you have any supporting information?

Well, I've settled on a 1519 climax, but with some reservations. I've looked up a bunch of sources, but most didn't help too much. Together though, I get a pervading feeling:

When Selim I died in 1520, and Suleiman took over, all the major external problems had been pretty much solved, and I can sense confidence in the desire to conquer pervading the empire, instead of a desire to conquer based on bloodthirsty aggressiveness. In other words, by Suleiman's rule, conquering had become more of a ritual, which is not a word I would associated with a Crisis period.

Moving on..

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I'm going back to the Seljuks. The first identifiable Crisis I can
> find runs from 1064-1084 in the early stages of the
> Seljuk-Byzantine war.

> The main problem right now is the end date for the Crisis
> beginning in 1511 with the power struggle that lead to the rule of
> Selim I (1512-1520). I don't know where to put the end date, since
> the wars of conquest continued with Suleiman pretty much unabated.
> You end it in 1520. Do you remember why you did this and do you
> have any supporting information?

Even though I tell you to keep notes, I don't always do it myself. I
recall reading something that made it clear that the Ottoman conquest
of Syria and Egypt was a major, decisive event in Ottoman history,
and that's when I decided that 1520 was the place to end the crisis
war. The Empire continued to expand after that, but it was mostly
against weak opposition, as I recall, until the war with the
Habsburgs.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Even though I tell you to keep notes, I don't always do it myself. I
recall reading something that made it clear that the Ottoman conquest
of Syria and Egypt was a major, decisive event in Ottoman history,
and that's when I decided that 1520 was the place to end the crisis
war. The Empire continued to expand after that, but it was mostly
against weak opposition, as I recall, until the war with the
Habsburgs.

Sincerely,

John

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

John, it's so difficult to determine what is important and what is not. The Selim I conquests were important because they doubled the size of the empire and gave them the jewels of Islam, Mecca and Medina. The capture of Belgrade in 1521 was my second choice. At this time, the Ottomans removed the last formidable contenders to stopping Ottoman gains in Europe. In 1529 they laid siege to Vienna, which was to be their greatest conquest, but failed, and then again in 1532. Suleiman also fought the Safavids and the Holy Roman Empire. These battles were fought long and hard. Most were successful, but they couldn't take Vienna.

This is a very difficult situation. The reason I went with 1519 was that all major problems had been solved at this point. From 1520 on I can sense a desire to conquer for more "political" reasons. I'm not sure, but I've lingered on this topic for a week now, and I should move on. There is a good chance that when I put it into the narrative (still a couple hundred years away) I will be able to make a stronger case.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> John, it's so difficult to determine what is important and what is
> not. The Selim I conquests were important because they doubled the
> size of the empire and gave them the jewels of Islam, Mecca and
> Medina. The capture of Belgrade in 1521 was my second choice. At
> this time, the Ottomans removed the last formidable contenders to
> stopping Ottoman gains in Europe. In 1529 they laid siege to
> Vienna, which was to be their greatest conquest, but failed, and
> then again in 1532. Suleiman also fought the Safavids and the Holy
> Roman Empire. These battles were fought long and hard. Most were
> successful, but they couldn't take Vienna.

> This is a very difficult situation. The reason I went with 1519
> was that all major problems had been solved at this point. From
> 1520 on I can sense a desire to conquer for more "political"
> reasons. I'm not sure, but I've lingered on this topic for a week
> now, and I should move on. There is a good chance that when I put
> it into the narrative (still a couple hundred years away) I will
> be able to make a stronger case.

Keep in mind that there's one more major possibility: The Ottomans in
Belgrade might be on a different timeline than the Ottomans in Egypt.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,



Keep in mind that there's one more major possibility: The Ottomans in
Belgrade might be on a different timeline than the Ottomans in Egypt.

Sincerely,

John

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

Here we go back to the problem of conquered territories. I decided to halt at ~1800 in Egypt for a few reasons. One of them was that I needed to research more on the Ottoman Empire and determine how their rule affected Egypt's cycle.

What do we define as Ottoman? Are Egyptians living under Ottoman rule considered Ottoman?

My hypothesis is that, after a certain number of years of being subjugated, a population's saeculum will move towards their rulers, more quickly than if they simply were neighbors. How can we define Ottoman? A number of factors play into this, but I suppose identity (race + religion) and time (merged saeculum) are the two biggest factors. By the switch of power from Selim I to Suleiman, what can we consider "Ottoman?" Certainly those living in Anatolia. What about those in Greece? I'm not so sure. And other places? It just gets stickier. I don't know where recruits came from (I'll look into it), but when doing the narrative for the Ottoman timeline, I have Turkic peoples (living in Greater Anatolia) in my head.

Has Singapore gone into a Second Turning? The latest Smithsonian had an article on how the formerly rigid, uptight, don't-you-dare-chew-gum-here city-state of Singapore is now loosening up and becoming a fun town. That sounds very much like Second Turning to me.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Has Singapore gone into a Second Turning? The latest Smithsonian had an article on how the formerly rigid, uptight, don't-you-dare-chew-gum-here city-state of Singapore is now loosening up and becoming a fun town. That sounds very much like Second Turning to me.

Eh...maybe live-and-let-live 3Tness? I don't think Singapore was that affected (at least not in a 4T way) by the Vietnam War. It was key to WWII though.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Has Singapore gone into a Second Turning? The latest Smithsonian had an article on how the formerly rigid, uptight, don't-you-dare-chew-gum-here city-state of Singapore is now loosening up and becoming a fun town. That sounds very much like Second Turning to me.

I haven't done a study of Singapore, but my assumption has been that it was on the WWII timeline. Do you have a link to the article?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I haven't done a study of Singapore, but my assumption has been that it was on the WWII timeline. Do you have a link to the article?

Sorry - I read it in the print edition.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Sorry - I read it in the print edition.

I forgot that such things existed.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues.../singapore.htm

I find it hard to get a feeling of where Singapore is from the article.

I would say they are probably on the same timeline as Malaysia, which had a Crisis in World War Two. Malaysia had race riots in the mid-late 1960s that are very Awakening-ish. I wonder if anything happened in Singapore around that same time.

Originally Posted by Odin

Chile be 2T.

Or is it?

Could it be that Chile is headed, like most of the West, into a 4T? I have thought the political culture before the Pinochet coup was essentially 2T, and that Pinochet successfully aborted the 2T awakening with a harsh repression of all dissent?

Pinochet left a legacy of people scared to challenge any government -- but also some of the severest inequality in the world. But the repression ended about twenty years ago; the severe inequality that Pinochet fostered has remained because democratic politicians have been scared of any radical challenge to the economic power structure. Was it an attempt to return to a 1T? That would be like expecting migratory birds to establish their nests in temperate climates in the late summer.

Chile is too small to not be under the generational influences of not only its neighbors -- but also upon the United States, which itself seems close to the 3T/4T cusp, and whose culture (music and movies in particular) can't be avoided. Political gridlock looks 3T to me, whatever the cause.

Originally Posted by sean '90

And those women would have been called 'flappers' in the 1920s.

Originally Posted by Odin

Good observation!

You're both missing the point. I know the similarities that can be found, so I added in that one should remember the context in which these actions are taking place.

Nomads will rebel against their elders, as will Prophets. The latter will break more new ground and their actions will be seen as more historically important. Indeed, the backlash against Prophet rebellion is often more on a grander scale.

Flapper culture was new, and was kind of dirty and crazy in nature. It was a popular apolitical fad.

The complete opposite is going on in Iran. Women are dressing "provocatively" as a sort of feminist statement, something that is completely new to Iran. As a result, over 150,000 Iranian women were detained for wearing loose head scarves. Student protests are rising (there are plenty of videos on the internet of these) against the hardline Islamic culture. Old Nomad and Hero leaders hope that by shutting down the press and delivering religious speeches they can quell the youngsters' rebellion. They have failed completely, and it has only inflamed the masses.

So there really isn't anything similar between the two.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're both missing the point. I know the similarities that can be found, so I added in that one should remember the context in which these actions are taking place.

Nomads will rebel against their elders, as will Prophets. The latter will break more new ground and their actions will be seen as more historically important. Indeed, the backlash against Prophet rebellion is often more on a grander scale.

Flapper culture was new, and was kind of dirty and crazy in nature. It was a popular apolitical fad.

The complete opposite is going on in Iran. Women are dressing "provocatively" as a sort of feminist statement, something that is completely new to Iran. As a result, over 150,000 Iranian women were detained for wearing loose head scarves. Student protests are rising (there are plenty of videos on the internet of these) against the hardline Islamic culture. Old Nomad and Hero leaders hope that by shutting down the press and delivering religious speeches they can quell the youngsters' rebellion. They have failed completely, and it has only inflamed the masses.

So there really isn't anything similar between the two.

If anything, a 2T can go reasonably well or badly. Elder Civics must accept that the "paradise" that they created for themselves alienates their children who weren't brought up like their Civic parents, lest they have a "victory" that proves the cultural and moral bankruptcy of their "paradise".

I think of the 1960s in the West, and however unsettling the time may have been to materialistic, conformist adults -- the time was necessary. Some Silent and Boomers were able to rediscover values that the Lost and GIs forgot. Without those values we might have a culture of the barracks, an absurd hierarchy, traditions beyond question or justification.

The Lost and GIs created the post-WWII material world and did it well -- but they assumed, it seems, that culture was something that one could preserve for all times while ignoring.

Oh -- Ahmedinedjad seems to be handling what looks like an Awakening very badly -- so badly that it could explode upon him. Anyone who can make Holocaust Denial an article of faith soils himself.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh -- Ahmedinedjad seems to be handling what looks like an Awakening very badly -- so badly that it could explode upon him. Anyone who can make Holocaust Denial an article of faith soils himself.

Ahmadinejad will not last. He's handling this 2T worse than LBJ did. Worse than Nixon did. Iran has another presidential election in 2009. Watch carefully.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I posted a long discussion on this point yesterday at historyunfolding.com--an extended comparison of the Civil War saeculum and this one.

A Fourth Turning occurs when one civic order dissolves (or is forcibly dissolved from outside) and another one has to replace it. People who deny Iraq is in a Fourth Turning should join with those who deny the Soviet Union was in one, 1917-30 or so, in an auction for the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Soviet Union and Iraq are completely different in terms of regime toppling. Iraq was invaded and the regime was toppled by the U.S. They did not bring it on themselves (and probably wouldn't have), which is key.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

The Soviet Union and Iraq are completely different in terms of regime toppling. Iraq was invaded and the regime was toppled by the U.S. They did not bring it on themselves (and probably wouldn't have), which is key.

Agreed. A great power like Britain could have toppled our government in the early 1820s but it would have not pushed us back into a 4T. Probably a really really bloody 2T though...like, oh, what's that country? Iraq!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're both missing the point. I know the similarities that can be found, so I added in that one should remember the context in which these actions are taking place.

Nomads will rebel against their elders, as will Prophets. The latter will break more new ground and their actions will be seen as more historically important. Indeed, the backlash against Prophet rebellion is often more on a grander scale.

Flapper culture was new, and was kind of dirty and crazy in nature. It was a popular apolitical fad.

The complete opposite is going on in Iran. Women are dressing "provocatively" as a sort of feminist statement, something that is completely new to Iran. As a result, over 150,000 Iranian women were detained for wearing loose head scarves. Student protests are rising (there are plenty of videos on the internet of these) against the hardline Islamic culture. Old Nomad and Hero leaders hope that by shutting down the press and delivering religious speeches they can quell the youngsters' rebellion. They have failed completely, and it has only inflamed the masses.

So there really isn't anything similar between the two.

Odin and I still pwn you! Ask Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaievna of Russia, she'll correct your wayward impressions of flappers.