This can cover some of the turf left open by the demise of the "4T & Anything Military" thread.
I'll start by rescuing some of my old posts.
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Clarksville, TN
- Posts
- 2,007
S&H's Theory, Regarding War & the Military
This can cover some of the turf left open by the demise of the "4T & Anything Military" thread.
I'll start by rescuing some of my old posts.
Nomad Veterans
Originally posted 13 August 2007:
-I know that many WWI soldiers did get homecoming parades, and that plenty of WWII soldiers did not (I doubt that there's any statistical data). The WWI soldiers got a nice lump-sum pension payment, but not until 1945 (the Bonus Marchers in 1932 wanted it early). The financial compensation that WWI veterans got wasn't that different from what previous vet's got (ACW Confederates are a special case); the WWII vet's just got an unusually spiffy deal. Like in any war, the welcome home varied; watch "The Best Years of Our Lives" for a reasonable Hollywood portrayal of WWII vet's homecoming made in 1946 (i.e. before the rose-colored memories).Originally Posted by Pink Splice
However, as usual, the important point isn't exactly what happened, but how people remembered what happened later on. The WWI vet's went from heroes who accomplished something great to suckers who fought a pointless war (in some quarters, anyway). Eventually, they were overshadowed by the WWII vet's, while WWII vets have yet to be overshadowed by later vet's (including me- no surprise there).
As to the treatment SE Asia vet's, it shouldn't have had the same impact on the late Silent or early Boom in general, because fewer were effected- at least 2 Million doughboys fought in WWI (out of a population of 100M), while about the same number fought in SE Asia (out of 200M). However, for VN veterans, the denigration began while the war was still going on- a similar thing happened during the Phillipene Insurrection, despite US troops' generally skilled and decent performance. Civic/Hero vet's just get remembered more favorably, regardless of what they actually did during "their" war.
Generation Types
Originally posted SEP 2007:
-I'll try to refine this.
Prophets (general): If they really want to serve, they can make excellent soldiers, but if they don't, forget it. The late-wavers (volunteer or otherwise) are a problem due to high levels of social degeneracy. Trying to draft Prophets is like trying to ride herd on cats. Fortunately, they usually come of age during relatively minor wars:
Boomers: Many excellent soldiers for the later stages of VN (post-1966), but lots of problems (if somewhat oversold in the Hollywood version of VN). The AVF military almost fell apart with late-wavers as recruits. As far as I can tell, every 2-star flag rank officer and above is a Boomer. As of 2007, the oldest serving enlisted man currently serving on active duty was a retired reservist CSM (b. 1946) who was (voluntarily) recalled to active duty;
Missionaries: Probably had lower rates of military participation than any other American generation (generally less than 5% for men), but the guys who showed up put in creditable performances in the S-A War, PI, and Boxer Rebellion; the US Volunteers who fought the PI may have been some the best (large) fighting units the US Army put together before the 1980s. There was no draft;
Transcendentals: Many of the volunteer units fought well in the 1812 and 2nd Seminole wars, but the mass-raised (and not neccessarily volunteer) militia's of NY, New England, & Maryland did badly in 1812-14, with some of the US Army's most disgraceful moments. The AV Navy performed well, with some of the Navy's most glorious moments.
Nomads (general): Perhaps more likely to volunteer than Prophets, although this may be because they're more likely to come of age during conflict for which to volunteer. Like late-wave Prophets, first-wave Nomads have high levels of social degeneracy. Trying to draft Nomads is almost as difficult as trying to draft Prophets, so it's best to stay with an All Volunteer Force.The volunteers have to be selected with care, but the best Nomads might be the best soldiers of all:
Xers: The post 1980 AVF may the best military (man for man) that America has ever fielded. Today, most senior NCOs (E7-E9), and almost all O-4s and O-5s are Xers.
The Lost: There was some violent resistance to the WWI draft, but most went. As S&H point out in "Generations", Americans were horrified by the generally low IQ scores of the recruits (some of this involved immigrants with English as a Second Language issues). Both our allies and enemies considered American soldiers to be highly motivated, if not the most technically proficient. The Germans thought very highly of the USMC, which remained an AVF. Pershing's Expedition in Mexico, which was all Regular Army (AVF), performed well.
The Gilded: The record of ACW soldiers is mixed. The most violent anti-draft riot was in JUL 1863, in NYC. The Volunteer units which fought the Mexican War performed fairly well on the battlefield, but were a pain in the butt off it.
Libertys: The militia had bad reputations, and in most provincial volunteer units, the recruiters seem to have found the "dregs", rather than being picky. About 1/3rd of the "redcoats" who performed so badly during Braddock's march to Ft. Duquense were actually recently recruited Americans. On the other hand, Roger's Rangers had (and still have) and excellent reputation; they were specially selected volunteers.
Heroes (general): Generally compliant to a draft. The late-wavers (along with early-wave Artists) seem to be the brightest and least degenerate of all generations, and should make good raw material.
Millenials: So far, so good. However, it's not the doings of the small numbers of Heroes who join an AVF that make the generation, but rather the masses who get drafted during a crisis war (coming soon to a globe near you, if S&H are right). Right now, every Millenial is below the rank of O-4 (if an officer), or below E-9 (if enlisted); there might not be any E-8 Millenials.
GIs: Many opposed the draft for 12 month's service in 1940, and it's extension to 30 months of service in 1941, but unlike Nomads, the number of resisters were small, and none of the resistance was violent. GI performance was not what it should have been, considering their relatively high educational levels; the excellent performance of the small numbers who joined volunteer units (USMC until 1945, Airborne, Rangers) is not representative of them as a whole. The GIs who stayed in the military became the field grade officers with lackluster performances in Korea, and the generals with even more lackluster performances in VN.
Republicans: Many joined the Continental Army willingly enough in 1775 & 1776, but bailed when the going got tough and the term of enlistment was increased to "3 Years or the War"; Virginia and Massachusetts went to a draft to fill their quotas. The mass militia often performed badly (NY '76, Camden); the Over-The-Mountain-Men who fought Ferguson's Tories were not exactly typical of their generation. The Republicans who stayed in the Army were the generals who performed so badly in 1812.
Artists (general): Generally compliant to a draft. The early-wavers (along with late-wave Heroes) seem to be the brightest and least degenerate of all generations, and should make good raw material. Although S&H de-emphasize Artists' martial aspects, they've often made good generals, cleaning up the messes made by their Hero predecessors.
The Silent: Many of the 1925-1927 cohorts fought in 1944/45; their performance is difficult to differentiate from the GIs, although almost all of the Silent were relatively junior ranking (privates/PFCs, or lieutenants, depending on education). Supplied the masses for Korea (so-so), and caught the beginning of VN. Draft resistance was very low. In the 1970s, the professional Artists got to clean up the mess the GIs left. IIRC, there was a retired Silent who got reclled to active sometime in 2004-2005; he was a shrink who was an expert on PTSD.
Progressives: Many of the 1843 cohorts fought thru' ACW, and 1844-1847 caught the later parts (particularly CS). (BTW, I think the 1843 cohort might be a one-year Hero generation, but that's just me. The S&H description of McKinnley makes him sound like a Candy Striper; in reality, he was a senior NCO who ended up getting a battlefield commission).
Compromisers: Some of the first-wavers caught the later parts of AWI (like Ole' Hickory). They would provide the mass of manpower for Shay's Rebellion, the fight vs. the NW Indians, and the Whiskey Rebellion (one of the wars with the largest per-capita participation in US history, although brief & bloodless). The late-wavers caught the war of 1812, where their performance is difficult to differentiate from the younger Transcendentals. Republican Generals got thrown out on their butts, and were replaced by Compromisers (Jackson, Scott, Harrison) who got results (S&H usually portray Heroes as the result getters, not Artists. Hmmm...).
Nice analysis!
Prophets & their Heroes in 4T Crisis Wars
Originally Posted OCT 2007 (with modifications):
From Justin '77:
"Given that one of the characteristic behaviors of the Prophet gens per generational theory is to raise a herd of cannon-fodder and then put them in front of the cannons, my take hardly comes off as unreasonable."
-Strauss & Howe don't say that Prophets RAISE (nascent) Hero generations to be "cannon fodder"; they say that Prophets raise Heroes to implement their plans for a "better" world. However, during 4Ts, a war breaks out that threatens the implementation of the Prophets' plans, and you end up with a Total War, particularly when you have opposing Prophet factions in a civil war over principle (e.g. ACW). In some Crisis Wars, the losses are horrendous (ACW), while in others, the nascent Heroes get off relatively easily (WWII). Either way, the nascent Heroes may have BECOME "cannon fodder", but they weren't RAISED that way.
BTW, In some wars (ACW, WWII), the true "cannon fodder" are the first few Artist cohorts (1843-1845, 1925-1926), not the Heroes. Of course, since the difference between a eventual Heroes & and eventual Artists is that the Heroes were those who were senior enough to get "validation" during the Crisis (i.e. they're both Nascent heroes until the end of 4T), this may be a fine point.
I should also point out that in some Crisis wars (AWI, ACW), the Prophets themselves get killed, although rarely as "cannon fodder".
To which Justin '77 replied:
"Ohhhh. I see. So the Prophets are raising drones to build their Perfect World, and somehow it seems that, due to no fault of their own -- in fact, for reasons completely independent of the Prophet's Crusade -- a war just sort of 'breaks out'. Yeah."
-It takes two to tango. You could make that case with ACW and (perhaps) AWI and the Glorious Rev', but if the bad guys come after you (Phillip II, WWII), then, yes, they fight, due to no (reasonable) fault of their own.
I also doubt that Prophets deliberately raise "drones", anymore than Heroes deliberately raise stubborn know-it-alls; they just turn out that way, mostly because parents react to the perceived failings of their own parents. Most parents of any generation simply raise children.
Will Millenial Generals Suck?
Originally posted DEC 2007 (with modifications):
S&H pointed out the lousy track record of Hero generation generals after the AWI (Republicans) and WWII (GIs)...Harmar, Hull, and Westmoreland spring to mind. Like much of S&H's stuff, I think it's a little over-simplified (Anthony Wayne, Creighton Abrams were obviously competent), but there might be something there. I haven't noticed any particular problems with the current crop of Millenial officers (the next nascent Hero generation), but if S&H are correct, and the pattern holds, then these guys are destined to become crappy generals in the 2040s. Why would this be?
Possibilities:
1) Early wave Hero officers generally start their careers in times when the military is neglected or ignored (i.e. after the French & Indian War; after WWI). Maybe it has an effect? (What would that effect be?)
2) Hero officers suffer from rapid promotions during 4T Crisis Wars (AWI, WWII), which means they get promoted above their level of experience. This is particularly dangerous to later wave members of the Hero generation, since these future generals tend to miss out on leadership at the platoon & company level, where they learn the nitty-gritty reality of military operations;
3) The best Hero officers get killed or debilitated during the 4T Crisis War, leaving the idiots, the cowards, the uninspiring, and the guys who just didn't do much except "screw up, move up" to eventually get promoted to general;
4) Hero officers suffer from an unusually counter-productive promotion systems which attracts and rewards mediocre officers while ignoring or and weeding out the best? (Note: Before a 4T Crisis War, the selecting is done by Prophets and Nomads; afterwards, by Nomads and older Heroes) These promotion systems weren't neccesssarily "bad" to start out with, but they get twisted; they're normally a Nomad reaction (or over-reaction) to a previous flawed practice.
The "bad" system that created bad Republican generals was promotion almost entirely by time in service, resulting in general's rank being associated with senility; this was a Nomad reaction to the flawed British system of purchased commisions and promotion by connection (George Washington was a victim of both of these practices).
The "bad" system that created bad GI generals was "ticket-punching", where an officer is rushed thru' a variety of jobs to "round him out"; this was a Nomad reaction to guys being stuck in certain types of jobs (particularly staff positions) which limited their overall experience (Ike felt he was poorly prepared to command SHAFE due to his limited "troop time"). ;
5) Hero hubris after the 4TCW makes them over-confident and prone to ignore advice from anyone who wasn't in "The Big One";
6) Older Heroes are supposed to be "distracted". Maybe they're just not paying attention anymore?
7) Hero generals are stuck taking orders from Hero politicians. [Madison, LBJ, McNamara]
These problems didn't seem to harm the GI generation NCO corps to the same extent that it harmed the officers, although there was that crooked Sergeant Major in the 70's "PX Scandal" (the very first Command Sergeant Major of the Army, I believe). The data for Republican generation NCOs is limited.
It looks like the Republican's follow-on Artist generation of Compromisers avoided the Heroes' problems (Jacob Brown, Winfield Scott, Ole' Hickory, Zachary Taylor), although I should note that those were the guys who were left AFTER the War of 1812 weeded out the losers, not before.
On first blush, the Silent seemed to have followed the GIs bad example during Vietnam, but it was mostly Silent who cleaned up the mess the GIs left from Vietnam. The post-WWII GI generation's performance might bely S&Hs view of Heroes as "Builders of Effective Institutions"- it was Silents and Boomers who fixed it.
Last edited by jamesdglick; 04-04-2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason: change print style
GI Generals; Mad Anthony Wayne
Originally posted DEC2007:
Originally Posted by Odin
One big thing IMO, at least in the case of Vietnam, is that the GIs never really "got" asymmetric warfare, the US military of the aging GIs was essentially designed for a World War III with the USSR that never came.
-Fair enough, but several questions follow from that (from the S&H point of view):
What was it about the mindset of GI generation officers that didn't ALLOW them to adapt to asymetric warfare? Would generals from an Artist, Prophet, or Nomad generation have done better? The issues that seem to apply are:
#5 Hero hubris after the 4TCW makes them over-confident and prone to ignore advice from anyone who wasn't in "The Big One".
#6 Older Heroes are supposed to be "distracted". Maybe they're just not paying attention anymore?
-Both #5 & #6 in the Vietnam context come down to Heroes not taking good advice from their juniors or out-of-the-box thinkin' peers. The #5 issue ("hubris") also deals with the Hero tendency to prefer decisive, immmediate results which aren't normally found in a counter-insurgency.
Of course, there were GI generation generals who did adapt to counter-insurgency (particularly the USMC, based on their more recent history with it), but they weren't the guys who were put in charge. Was there something in the promotion/selection system of GIs that insured that the wrong guys made the policies? The issues that might apply are:
#4 Hero officers suffer from an unusually counter-productive promotion system which attracts and rewards mediocre officers while ignoring or and weeding out the best? [The post-WWII GI generation "Ticket Puching"] (Note: Before a 4T Crisis War, the selecting is done by Prophets and Nomads; afterwards, by Nomads and older Heroes).
#7 Hero generals are stuck taking orders from Hero politicians. [Madison, LBJ, McNamara]
-#4 deals with guys making general because they brown-nose and avoid making waves, #7 deals with the politicians who have to be brown-nosed.
Comapring the VietNam War to the War in the NW Territory 1790-94 (not an exact match on many levels, but bear with me), the US army suffered failure under Harmar (Republican generation), a disastrous defeat under St. Clair (Liberty; the 800+ US KIA at the Wabash was worse than any week in VietNam) , but was finally successful under Wayne (b. 1745 Republican generation) at Fallen Timbers. Wayne's tactics seem to retain a conventional "feel", although they were combined with proven indian fighting methods. The main difference between Wayne and the previous two was that he was patient enough to ensure that his troops were well trained and well disciplined. The GI generation generals neglected both training and discpline standards in the 60s and early 70s.
Wayne is an exception to my "Why Hero Generals Suck" list:
#1 & #2 Wayne's military experience before 1775 consisted of a studied interest in military history. By modern standards, his promotions (BG FEB 1777, MG 1783) were rapid in terms of "Time in Grade", but he was only promoted after he had solidly proven himself in combat as a regimental, brigade, then divisional commander; appearently, he got plenty of "nitty-gritty reality" out of these experiences.
#3 Wayne was permanently weakend by 4 wounds, but was able to get thru' AWI, and (with difficulty) managed to serve 1792-95. He died in 1795.
#4 In 1779, Wayne was actually dropped in position from Division commander down to brigade commander to make room the the previously mentioned Arthur St. Clair, who had Date of Rank on him. Wayne got over it. In the NW, after taking over the mess that the same St. Clair made, he was constantly sabotaged by his back-stabbing subordinate Wilikinson; Wayne seems to have ignored him successfully. Wilkinson (Republican b.1757) was a himself a prime example of #3 and #4; he would later become one of those worthless Republican generation generals during the War of 1812.
#5 & #6 He was patient and determined enough to rebuild the US Army after St. Clair's disaster.
#7 Washington (Liberty) was POTUS, Knox (Republican) was SECWAR, most of congress was Republican generation; Unlike VietNam, this was at the end of 4T, not the beginning of 2T.
Last edited by jamesdglick; 11-22-2008 at 03:23 PM. Reason: Added original date of posting
More on the creation of Hero Gen Generals
Originally posted DEC 2007:
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
The good ones and the bad ones are sorted out quickly, the incompetent ones becoming KIA themselves or ending up with excessive casualties that discredit them as officers before they can do extreme damage...
-Not neccessarily. There are plenty of ways to "get over" (see "#4", below). Think of James Wilkinson; the guy keeps turning up like the proverbial bad penny throughout the AWI - 1812 period.
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
...But it also proves some quickly as junior officers...
-Some certainly will. The problem is that there's no guarantee that The Best get the promotions after the 4T Crisis War (or any other war, for that matter, although I think that this phenomon might be worst in 1T & 2T.
The above two issues come back to hypothesis #4:
4) Hero officers suffer from an unusually counter-productive promotion systems which attracts and rewards mediocre officers while ignoring or and weeding out the best...
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
...After The Big One, those in power to promote often choose those most like themselves, often choosing mannerisms, political values, and personal habits more like their own. That's normal in any bureaucracy: those more like the boss are presumably less likely to disappoint. That tendency fosters groupthink. But when something goes haywire, those in power might choose someone for being very different, only to find out why that person wasn't promoted so quickly...
-Probably; this isn't confined to the post-4TCW era, but it might get worse, since old systems get over-turned in a 4T. Or maybe it has something to do with the Reactives (Nomads) who do the picking...
*Plenty of WWII vets got called up for Korea; the Army didn't use the reserve comonents very much for Vietnam (probably a gigntic mistake, on many levels).
Generations & the Draft
Originally posted JUN 2008 (with modifications). Yes, there's a generational point at the end:
-What really happens when America institutes a draft? Military compensation does not decline; sometimes, it actually increases...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the WWII experience:
In the all-Volunteer Regular Army of the late 1930s, private's pay was:
$21/month (approx. 290/month in 2008 dollars);
In AUG 1941, months after the draft was instituted, private's pay was increased to:
$30/month (approx. $410/month in 2008 dollars);
In JUN 1942, after Pearl Harbor et al, and with the draft in full swing, private's pay was increased again to:
$50/month (approx. $650/month in 2008 dollars), and...
...at the same time, the military instituted family allowances for those servicemen who were married and/or had children. If you think that getting a bonus for bringing parasites into the system is a bad idea (as I do), blame FDR;
By the end of WWII, a private's pay was still:
$50/month (approx. $558/month, i.e. still better than pre-draft pay).
As far as I can tell, the food didn't get cheaper from 1940-1945, and housing didn't get cheaper either.
So, in WWII, for whatever reason, the draft did not drive down the servicemen's compensation package; it actually improved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the WWI experience:
In the all-Volunteer Regular Army before WWI, private's pay was:
$15/month (approx. $279/month in 2008 dollars);
In 1917, with the beginning of the war, and with the draft becoming law, a private's pay was increased to:
$30.00/month (approx. $558/month in 2008 dollars);
As far as I can tell, the food didn't get cheaper from 1916-1918, and housing didn't get cheaper either (yes, recruit doughboys were often encamped in tents rather than in lighted, wooden barracks, but that was unintentional mismanagement, not a planned cost savings).
So, in WWI, for whatever reason, the draft did not drive down the servicemen's compensation package; compensation actually improved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Civil War experience:
In the all-Volunteer Regular Army of 1860, private's pay was:
$11/month;
In MAY 1861, with the calling out of State Volunteers, private's pay was increased to:
$13/month;
In 1864, with the use of an ineffective draft, private's pay was increased to:
$16/month (I think this kept pay a little ahead of inflation).
As far as I can tell, the food didn't get cheaper from 1861-1865, and housing didn't get cheaper either (although in 1864, most of Mr. Lincoln's boys were in the field).
So, in ACW, for whatever reason, the draft did not drive down the servicemen's compensation package; compensation stayed about the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why would M&L think Draftees drive down compensation in the first 2 years of service?
Now, the VietNam War experience:
In 1969, in the middle of the VietNam War, with the draft in force, and before President Nixon's move to the All Volunteer Force, a private E1's pay was:
$115.28/month ($631.52 /month in 2008 dollars).
In inflation adjusted terms, this isn't much lower than what privates got paid in AUG 1942, and is far better than what Volunteers got paid in 1939.
Now, I'd say that servicemen in 1969 did get ripped off; the difference between 1969 and 1942 was that the standard of living had improved, but that military pay and living conditions hadn't kept up. But this didn't happen in a day, but took 27 years of neglect.
To re-cap':
Compensation stayed about the same for ACW Draftees; who got drafted in ACW? The supposedly despised Gilded (Nomads), with an increasing number of Progressives (eventual Artists, but still Nascent-Hero at the time).
Compensation actually increased for WWI Draftees; who got drafted in ACW? The supposedly despised Lost (Nomads).
Compensation actually increased for WWII Draftees; who got drafted in ACW? The GIs (Nascent-Heroes), and starting in 1943, an increasing number of "repressed" Silent (eventual Artists, although the seperation year between GI & Silent wasn't really determined yet; they still could have become "emboldened" Heroes).
So what happened to Draftees' compensation between 1942 and 1969? Most of those years involved drafting the post-war Silent (who were now fully confirmed "unemboldened" Artists): "Taken-for-granted"; "smothered"; "repressed".
So, based on the track record, turning Millenials, who are still Nascent-Heroes, into Draftees won't bring per-serviceman savings to this country; the cost per serviceman might actually increase. M&L's savings will have to wait until after a 4T Crisis War, when we can do with the Artists as we please.
I found an interesting chart (see page 2):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33518.pdf
...but, sorry, I can't get it to paste... It was done in JUL 2006, and projects which "commissioning years" would be at which ranks as the end of FY 2007 (i.e. 30 SEP 2007).
Although it's possible to be commisioned at age 20, and in some cases (usually prior service) past age 40, officers usually get commisioned at 21-22 years of age. So, if we pro-rate the chart to today (19 FEB 2009), we find the following in todays US Army (Regular, active duty):
2nd Lieutenants (2LT): Almost all Millenials; a small number of Xers; and except for a few odd cases, no Boomers.
1st Lieutenatnts (1LT): See above, only slightly fewer Millenials; and slightly more Xers; a smattering of Boomers.
Captains (CPT): Some Millenials, mostly Xers, and a miniscule number of Boomers.
Majors (MAJ): No Millenials (and there won't be for a few more years); mostly Xers, a few Boomers.
Lieutenant Colonels (LTC): Mostly Xers; a few Boomers.
Colonels (COL): Some X'ers; more Boomers.
Nothing on Enlisted ranks. Typical.
Nascent Hero/Artist + 4T Crisis War = Hero Generation
Originally posted JUN 2008 (with expansions, deletions, consolidations & modifications of posts # 58, 59, 62, 68, 70, 71 of the "Naming the Crisis" thread):
-By that standard, the Progressives would have qualified as Heroes; they had at least as much to do with our transcontinental railroad system as the GIs had to do with the interstate highway system; you could credit the Progressives for industrialism and our telephone network. Based on technological competence, Thomas Edison (b. 1847) certainly should have had some self-entitled hubris, don't you think?
The English Victorians were as technologically competent as the Progressives, and probably far more than the over-rated GIs. If being engineers turns a Nascent-Hero generation into Heroes, then why didn't the Victorians acquire a self-entitled hubris?
To which GB posted (re Victorian hubris):
...to which I replied:
IMHO, a generational cohort solidifies as Prophet (Idealist) or Nomad (Reactive) sometime between 12 and 18 years of age, and the same is true of a Nascent-Hero (Nascent-Civic) cohort, who, at some point later on, coalesce as either Heroes or Artists (Adaptives).
Using the GI & Silent as an example, pre-war GIs weren't that different from the later Silent; the GIs may have felt a little less "repressed" than the Silent, but only because they weren't as far along in the "repression process" as the Silent.
In many ways, the "natural state" of Nascent-Heroes is essentially that of Adaptives (Artists), and they'll remain that way unless something "odd" happens. Under those "odd" circumstances, the front end of that batch gains the self-confidence to break free of their "repression" and become hubristic and self-entitled Civics (Heroes)...
-To create a Hero generation, I think you need three "odd" things:
1) A "Time of Peril" that successfully resolves long-standing issues (usually 2T in origin). This usually happens during 4T (I've been calling them 4T Crisis Wars). "Successfully resolved" is in the eye of the beholder, in this case, society. Just any war won't do;
2) Nascent-Hero cohorts performing sacrifice during that "Time of Peril" in unusually large numbers; "sacrifice" is a fancy way of saying "We're putting our butts on the line so that everyone else doesn't have to". I don't believe that this requires a high casualty rate; it's the possibilty that matters. If that war is "successfully resolved", then society owes the newly minted Heroes BIG TIME. That's why Heroes' have such a high "sense of entitlement" (which Artists lack);
3) Nascent-Hero cohorts ready to take leadership positions during that "Time of Peril"; not neccessarily in the military (think shop foreman in a B-17 factory, or the mayor of a port town), but in large numbers. After the war is "successfully resolved", these leaders think that they've proven that they're better qualified than anyone else to make important decisions (whether they fought or not). That's where the Heroes "hubris" comes from, which Artists lack.
The War of 1812 and WWI were missing one or more of the above ingredients, as was ACW, thus the Progressives as Artists rather than Heroes.
-If you don't see how technology fits into war, you could have asked any surviving Jap in Hiroshima on the evening of 6 August 1945 to explain...
The GIs didn't get their reputation for competence until WWII; before that, America feared that the GIs might be useless lumps. I would also say that it was a partly unearned reputation. In many cases, GIs weren't creators, but rather beneficiaries:
A GI didn't popularize cheap cars, a Missionary (Ford) did; under Ford, the Ford Motor Company developed the Model T, while the same company under GIs created something called the Edsel... and then sabotaged it:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960-edsel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara
A GI didn't inspire the Interstate Highway system, a Lost (Ike) did; he first proposed the idea after leading a cross-country experiment in 1919...it is true that it only came to fruition when the GIs were in their prime, because they saw the same idea work in Germany during their sight-seeing trips during an escapade called WWII, after which, they ripped off the Nazis' ideas (except not as well...);
...the GIs did the same thing with rocketry and jet propulsion; atomic power was a combination of (mostly immigrant) Lost and GIs...
-Whether or not McCain has self-confidence, the 1936 cohort doesn't have all the ingredients to make a Hero cohort. They were too young for WWII; they weren't even old enough to be Eagle Scouts. Very few participated in Korea (and certainly not in leadership positions). More participated in VietNam, usually as leaders, but it wasn't a 2T issue-resolving 4T Crisis War (if anything, it created 2T issues). That's why, as a rule, the the 1936 cohort lacks the Heroes' know-it-all hubris and that lovely sense of entitlement.
-Hemmingway's 1899 cohort was probably already "in the oven" for Nomad staus by 1917 (assuming "type" formation between 12-18 years of age). Other ingredients are also missing; no hubris, no sense of entitlement.
-Joining the CCC for $30/month for a job isn't a "sacrifice", it's simply taking care of one's self and one's family, something most adults of all generations do. No "sacrifice", so no sense of entitlement (until after WWII).
-TJ (b. 1743) was an accomplished man who wrote some pretty words under the wise guidance of Franklin (Awakener) and J Adams (Liberty). Of course, the "Declaration of Independence" would have made a pretty rough batch of toilet paper if the war hadn't been successful...
Also, based on his bluster while Governor of Virginia, Jefferson seemed to think he was fighting a war, until the red-coats showed up in Williamsburg and he ran away like a Girl Scout...
Anyway, he was a non-military leader during a 4T Crisis War, in which a large portion of the 1743 cohort did serve in the military. And of course, they won AWI, resolving many 2T issues. Thus, entitled and hubristic, and thus, Heroes.
-If it was just AWI, then the Republican generation would have been 1742-1762 (BTW, 5% of the Continental Army was 16 years of age or younger; I doubt tat many were in leadership positions). I suspect that the wars in the Old Northwest (1790-1794) and the Whisky Rebellion (1794) extended it to 1742-1766 (The largely bloodless Whisky Rebellion actually created one of the higher Military Participation Ratios in American history)...
-I think you're under-estimating the Military Participation Ratio for the Dutch Wars and King Williams' War (Grand Alliance), particularly privateers (think Captain Kydd), whom I'd suspect numbered in the thousands, and the Glorious Revolution. A good chunk of the English immigrant population would also have served in the Jacobite rebellions and the War of the Grand Alliance.
-The 4TCW was a war with King Phillip's Spain, not just the Armada fight. That would be like saying that WWII was exceedingly short because Midway took a few hours...
England kept a 6,000 man force in Holland for years (temporarily withdrawn during the Armada Summer). For a nation of about 3,000,000, that's over twice as many people as we've have deployed in all theaters of the Global War On Terror combined 2003-2008. Then, you can throw in hundreds (often thousands) of privateers serving every year starting in the 1570s, and over 90,000 militia called out to suppress Catholic spies & rebels, and to defend against the expected landing during the Armada Summer. There's also this:
The war continued into the 1590s, tho'.
I would have to say that your theory definately makes sense. However I think that perhaps this might be the cycle that might prove it to be "incorrect". I've been observing the 1988/1989 - ~2000 end of the current Millennials and I've been noticing that with each passing year their little hubristic egos are already the size of a hot-air balloon mostly because of the "Self-esteem" parenting/teaching techniques & giving trophies to every kid (just for participating). They already have a big amount of entitlement and if you don't deliver it or let them have their way, they're very quick to let you know/pout/sabotage your attempts.
A few examples come to mind. I was taking a Music History class with a Boomer teacher. In the class there were a mixture of juniors, sophmores, and freshmen. The Boomer teacher decided to do a different (and personal) interpretation of music history (what Boomer doesn't have a personal interpretation?) which upset half of the sophmores, and all of the Freshmen. Instead of just giving a list of dates, terms, and definitions to memorize she (gasp) actually made them think (horror of horrors)! And started focusing on not giving the answers to them in prepackaged boxes/notes for them to memorize and test well on, but actually train them to understand such minute details as the difference between Corelli and Vivaldi--Corelli likes more counterpoint and intertwining melodies (==) while Vivaldi likes more chordal connections (||||).
The few Juniors and most of the Sophmores (including me) in the class complained, but eventually gave up on the complaints, sighed and figured that they might as well learn the way the teacher was teaching them. A few Sophmores (the younger ones--I noticed at the time) and all the Freshmen however continued to complain and eventually went to the teacher about it & actually made her compromise to satisfy them. The Juniors and other Sophmores, while somewhat happy with this change were put off by the "audacity" of the younger crowd.
It's not just in that class either, it's in every class in College. It seems like the professors are whimps/wussies and are constantly changing their syllabuses to "suit the needs/wants" of this younger crowd--even if it's only one person that complains. I've given up on ever reading/following the syllabus because the professor is surely going to change it in the future soon anyway. I've only taken one class in my three years in college where the teacher actually followed the syllabus to a T - a Gen Xer actually. All the other professors seem to be Boomers who seem to be "pushovers" on everything and anything.
I've even observed when during a test a kid would get up in the class, go out and talk to the teacher, and the next minute the teacher comes in apologizing and all of a sudden question 15 is a "bonus question" just because the wording was a little "tricky". I so scoffed at that moment, and felt completely out of place amongst the younger crowd. I constantly want to tell the kids to "suck it up" and "deal with it", but they don't have to, nor do they expect to, and it annoys the hell out of me! Seeing them makes me hope that the next Idealist generation really kicks their hubristic egos to Timbuktu!
Me and the older kids are just resigned that the teacher/professor controls all and we are here for an education that we're glad/grateful to recieve. The younger crowd seems to think that they should be given that education, modify it to fit their own needs and have it GIVEN to them on their own terms, while we're shocked they have the gall to demand it.
So yeah, the late 1988 - 1994 cohort (I had to babysit two 1994 cohorts a few times, if you didn't babysit them the way they wanted it they threw a hissy fit & complained to Mom & Dad--had I been the parent I would've spanked them but since I was only a teen wanting a couple of extra bucks I couldn't do that unfortunately...) definately are Hero archetypes already. There's nothing Nascent about them!
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 03-11-2009 at 08:42 PM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
-There's still plenty of time to puncture those egos. The acid-test will be in 1T, which could be anytime from just around the corner, to 2035.
Please do deflate those egos! They're utterly insufferable to put up with! Voting for Obama (for the older half of the years of what I'm talking about) only makes them think that Obama will be like the Boomer Professors and give them what they want w/little complaint. I'm hoping Obama is more Xer than Boomer in that regard.
Yes, I wouldn't mind even helping to deflate those little egos of theirs. If I can't, well then I'll just have to be a dissident voice akin to what Lillian Hellman was to the rest of the G.I.s, & plot with the next Idealists on how to overthrow/destroy those egos. All in all a pretty simple task, right?
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Millie Students/Boomer Teachers
I teach at a college level and find my younger Millie undergraduates tend to be dutiful. They seem to want "assignments" and to be told what to do. Since I teach upper-lever creative writing, it's odd that these students want things spoon-fed. They're writers for Chrissakes. You write. I'm not going to have them reach into a paper bag and pull out an object and write about it. So they can write stilted high school "creative writing" and get an "A."
I will tailor my classes to address what I see as the needs of that particular class. So, yes, the syllabus gets adjusted or changed, but because of what I as the teacher observe from reading their work, not from what they tell me they want. If I'd listened to my students in my undergrad short story class and followed what they "liked," the writers we covered would have included only the hip-and-cool-for-now writers. No Wharton, Chekhov, Porter, or Heinrich von Kleist, who invented the form (and who influenced Kafka enormously). They'd have no historical contect to draw upon and less depth for their own writing.
The Millie writers look up to the GenX writers who, IMO, were angrier and took many more artistic risks. GenX students were in your face more and a pain in the ass in some ways, but they were more daring. It's a whole different cohort now. Though I'm grateful that I teach at a place with students of all ages.
Ann (l1957 boomer who identifies a bit more with X'ers than with Boomers, probably because I've always been immature).
Oh, I've seen the EXACT same thing here on my campus. Last fall I finally got around to the last required math course (Calculus) and the younger students were incredibly whiny and would bitch and moan if Professor Rothman give an assignment that made you have to think.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
It probably won't be until around 2040 -- at the start of a 2T -- when the next Idealist generation proves too much for Millennial egos to handle in the next Awakening Era. That's when the challenges to society involve culture instead of survival. Until then, once the Millennial generation finds its way through the hazards of a Crisis era, the ensuing High/Outer-directed (and Inner-deficient) era will be unusually bland, unimaginative, and conformist.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
@ anne
I agree, the older Millies are as you describe them (why else did I say the older ones sighed and gave in to dutifully doing it the way the professor/teacher wanted us to), but there's a younger set that are entering/just coming up the ladder and they're different & much more demanding from my observation.
I wish I could say and agree with you that all of this has been my imagination or that it couldn't be happening, but these things have been happening at my college, and I've noticed similar trends in the younger staff members at the Boy Scout camp I work at during the summer. There the younger staff members expect to be taken care of (given privileges not for being spectacular or great staff members, but just for being them... even when they screw up--I kid you not) by the management. Just to comply to them they brought into existence the "staff lounge" for staff members to hang out in and relax away from the campers. When they grew too loud at night, causing the nearby campers not to be able to sleep the lounge was taken away by the Gen Xer camp director. I can't tell you how the next few weeks were complete torture for the Gen Y staff directors as we were caught in between the Gen X management and the younger Millennials. Staff problems came to a spearhead later in the summer, when the only young Millennial staff director decided to continue a tradition (that had probably been there since Gen Jonesers were on staff) of creating a huge bomb fire between the Nature pavilion and the edge of the forest. This year the young Millennial director (who was just 18) decided to have the bomb fire be humongous--even more so than usual. To the point where the top of the woodpile was about less than a foot from a nearby tree branch. Luckily some campers saw this and reported it to the management (or else we'd likely would have had half the camp burn down). The young Millennial director then decided that instead of being "fired" he'd make a humongous dramatic scene and "quit" in front of the campers. The next day the younger Millennials all had duct tape on the sleeves of their shirts with young Millennial director's name on it and the date of his being "taken out by the man". All of the Gen Yers thought the idea and the young Millennial stupid, irresponsible, rash, and completely besides the point. The whole point of Boy Scout camp is not about staffer satisfaction through treats and gifts that the management provides, but the joy of giving back to the camp as well as to most importantly give the campers everything that was given to you. The younger Millennial staffers can't seem to get it into their heads that they're not the ones who are supposed to be satisfied, the campers are, and it's just plain scary.
Perhaps where you are you've so far been lucky to only interact with the Gen Y wave of Millennials, the early half of the Generation that I feel a part of and one of as well as one of the last of. Gen Y is everything you describe: dutiful, wants assignments, etc. The younger crowd doesn't and it's bothering the heck out of us, thus why I complained. Perhaps because of the type of class you teach you don't run into it as much since Creative Writing is designed more or less to be "give and take" already. However, when I took a creative writing class last semester though, which was for all grade levels (though Freshmen were the majority) I noticed that when the teacher gave assignments the Freshmen complained if they weren't given a strict set of guidelines or prompts to follow. To add to that the Aquarian wave professor kept asking what he could do to make the class better (and I always wanted to suggest that he take more control of the class at points, but his control was always watery at best, at least from my POV).
Sorry for picking on the Boomer professors, but most of the Boomers I've been talking about were Aquarian wave, not Gen Jones wave. There doesn't seem to be many Gen Jonesers as professors at my college (at least from my observations). Luckily though I've been noticing the newer Gen X professors they've been hiring don't put up with crap like what I've been discussing, and if you and Gen Jones are amongst their ranks of not putting up with all the above crap, then all the power to ya!
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 03-12-2009 at 05:22 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
What you note of teachers here in the States is certainly true of my Spanish teacher, who took a writing assignment the syllabus says was due Monday and has pushed it forward to after Spring Break. And we're doing a lot less writing and a lot more listing of vocabulary words. Though his lectures are informative.
Meanwhile - perhaps it's the 'across the pond' factor?
I note that my professor of history - Medieval Studies and Anglo-Saxon History - who is from the u.k., follows the syllabus exactly, gives us not only detailed notes, but starts the classes with a list of the major topics on the board. If you're smart you will write them down beforehand as a quick summary of what you will be tested on. AND you will write papers. AND they are due before Spring break. AND they are due on the same day you have a quiz AND you will also have a lecture.
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.
Yeah, I'm studying abroad and I'm running into more of the European equivalent of the Late Silent professors as well as a few professors who came from behind the Iron Curtain. They don't put up with this kind of crap. They're always assigning work on top of work and expect you to do it all. They fulfill the promise that was threatened to American High schoolers (that college wouldn't hold their hands for them) much better than their American peers. In my German class she hands out work that we're supposed to learn and then gives us extra work on top of it based on what we're not doing well in. She also talks to you right in front of the class what you're having troubles with. She even made fun of the "typical American student" by saying that usually European professors have to hold the American student's hands to get through the courses. Thus far Midterms are on Saturday and she's sternly refused to cowtow to several classmates' whinnings to "ease up". So yeah, I'd agree with you, Europeans aren't putting up with all this "self-esteem" bunk.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Meh, sounds like my Amerikan, state univeristy education as well. Homework, lab work, and papers, papers papers. I certainly didn't have anyone holding my hand. I did have a few profs tell us that university education was a "weeding out process" though.....and weed they did. If you didnt have your shit together and enough discipline to put the school work first, you'd flunk out.
I sometimes think comparing European education to American is like apples and oranges. European students dont have to take out huge loans and hold down a job just to go to school.
Last edited by Skabungus; 03-12-2009 at 01:23 PM.
Millenial Puncturing?!
-Good Lord. I can't tell if you're serious- that's harsh.
But, it brings up a point about Heroes and Hubris/Entitlement; it's not just a matter of their attitude, but the willingness of their elders (Nomads) and juniors (Artists) to accept it. I've brought this up before:
...and this point about Millenial puncturing:
-Hmmm... I was referring to a "puncturing of ego" that prevents the Nascent Hero Millenials from becoming "emboldened" Heroes, and turns them instead into frustrated Artists, a la the Progressives (due to the "failure" of the ACW 4T to resolve 2T issues), or the British Victorians (due to the lack of a violent challenge).
The puncturing to which you (PBR) refer occurs to a generation that has actualized as "Hero" during the preceeding 4T.
Hmmm... I guess the Millenials are due for an "ego deflation" whether they become Heroes or Artists.
-Hmmm... I'd want the class paper to be done before class break anyway; otherwise, you just have it hanging over your head...
Last edited by jamesdglick; 03-12-2009 at 02:22 PM. Reason: no seperation between topics
Done, handed in, and I celebrated by going to the local bookstore and happily browsing among the recreational reading. Not that - to my great surprise and delight - The Venerable Bede isn't a truly good read! Lively, accurate, and his personality shines through - like reading the best of the moderns.
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.
Yeah... I was a little overheated and not completely serious. I'm just sick and tired of having to deal with them mostly. They grow irritating in prolonged periods of exposure.
'Tis true that whether the Millies hubris/entitlement continues to develop depends on whether Xers and Homies decide to put up with it.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
I don't know what all this talk of "hand-holding" in American universities is all about. I'm at a run-of-the-mill state university, and none of my professors are holding my hand through the process. They assign me work. I either do it or I don't. I get graded on that work. They're not helping me through the process at all, and even though I find it relatively easy to do, it's not as if I don't have to be self-motivated and work through problems myself rather than asking for help from my professors.
