01-27-2021, 10:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2021, 10:19 PM by Eric the Green.)
(01-27-2021, 02:37 AM)jleagans Wrote:(01-25-2021, 07:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-17-2021, 12:11 PM)jleagans Wrote: Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.
I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:
Turning boundaries:
1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum
1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided
1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best
1929
1945
1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism.
1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism
2001- 9/11
Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.
I don't see how a generation can be only 16 years long.
The Strauss and Howe generation dates are correct since the Civil War. So are Turning boundaries. I see no reason to change them. They were based on biographical studies, not arbitrary choices.
A 68-year saeculum is unlikely.
2001 was definitely not the start of a fourth turning. To think so is to say that continuing the military industrial complex's maintenance of continuous war, waged far away from most peoples' lives, is the basis for turnings and generations. I say that it is just business as usual and did not mark any kind of turning shift or change. Foreign policy did not shift; it just went back to what it had been in the 1st and 2nd turning and the end of the previous 4T.
Turnings:
1865-1886 1T
1886-1908 2T
1908-1929 3T
1929-1946 4T
1946-1964 1T
1964-1984 2T
1984-2008 3T
2008-2029 4T
Generations (birth years):
Missionary 1860-1881
Lost 1882-1900
GI/Greatest 1901-1924
Silent 1925-1942
Boomer 1943-1960
X/13th 1961-1981
Millennial 1982-2002
Gen Z 2003-2024
Biography is almost the definition of arbitrary . People can’t decide the gens, the gens decide the people .
My years are built on major national attitude shifts . National shifts , to sharply good or bad, change parenting immediately and impacting the children being born .
And saeculum length I would argue should be in line with human life expectancy so in the 1800s 68 or less was about right .
Biography was a good empirical basis for studying life histories of different people of different times.
People decide the gens, and gens decide the people. As the authors put it, events determine outlook, and outlook determines events. It works both ways.
The authors picked out the right national attitude shifts. You picked out 9-11, which is wrong, and shows you don't quite have a handle on it.
The saeculum was longer in times when life expectancy was shorter, according to S&H. So that doesn't quite work. And life expectancy did not decline in the late 1800s from what it had been earlier. Your schedule of 68 years or less for shorter life spans suggests a saeculum from 1809 (or later) to 1877. I can't see that the first decade of the 19th century was part of a 4th turning; can you?
By the way, first turnings are full of racism and repressive trends. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts, the KKK during Reconstruction, and the McCarthy era. First turnings are no better than other turnings; it's just an emphasis on conformity instead of fragmentation (3T).