The Fourth Turning. (History Really Does Repeat Itself)

I was reading just yesterday about the events that brought about the end of the Roman Empire.
From all accounts there was no concensus.
Perhaps they did not take into accounts a "Fourth Turning". An entire generation that just did not want the
same things and have the same views as parents and grandparents of maintaining the status quo.

If it followed a pattern before then of the further ancestors and their generational turnings it must have been on a smaller scale and in ways that only affected on a more local level. That it must take a possibly set number of turnings to effect change on the grand scale.

To do a study of this, I suppose you would need to adjust for lifespans of various people having been much shorter in times past also. Knowledge handed down from grandparents, etc to have a historical perspective.

So according to the OP....

I'm Generation X,

My son is a millenial,

And my daughter is homeland.

Would be interesting to see how this develops, I would say the kids in my son's class, are quite chilled, vs the kids in my daughter's class, are far more firey.

God help us when Homeland grow up....I think I might bug out now ! lol

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
I was reading just yesterday about the events that brought about the end of the Roman Empire.
From all accounts there was no concensus.
Perhaps they did not take into accounts a "Fourth Turning". An entire generation that just did not want the
same things and have the same views as parents and grandparents of maintaining the status quo.

If it followed a pattern before then of the further ancestors and their generational turnings it must have been on a smaller scale and in ways that only affected on a more local level. That it must take a possibly set number of turnings to effect change on the grand scale.

To do a study of this, I suppose you would need to adjust for lifespans of various people having been much shorter in times past also. Knowledge handed down from grandparents, etc to have a historical perspective.

That's an interesting point you bring up about shorter lifespans in the past...I had thought about that too. The average lifespan in the past was much shorter than it is today, so did that affect the way the generational cycles played out in history? I think not, and here's why...

People always lived to be in their 70's and 80's, even hundreds or even thousands of years ago, but it was far more rare because many more people died at birth, in childhood, and through illness and war. But if you made it through those minefields of life, and you didn't die prematurely at an early age, then you still lived to be in your 70's or 80's as we do today. The average age of humans has increased over the years due to less children and young people dying at an early age, not because we are actually living to an older age. So therefore the generational cycles stay the same length, but just far less people make it to that late stage in life.

Just my two cents...

20 and 80 are nice even numbers, but I'm seeing it more as 18 and 72 based on the dates presented, and the fact that 72 is a bit closer to the average long age of an American. You can also spply these numbers easily to the four life stages of an individual. Childhood, Young Adulthood, Middle Aged Adult, and Old Aged Adult.

I think 2001 was the beginning of the crisis, and 2008 was the middle event which brings about revolution or regrowth by 2019. I also think 2008 will have a mirrored event in 2015. Two solid years of collapse, and transition into regrowth.

This gives helluva new meaning to 'History always repeats itself'. good stuff OP

History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. Education is key to peace and progress, and a great majority of the human population is grossly undereducated.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


Rather than seeing history repeats itself, it would be wise to say history echoes itself.

Humanity has an arrogance about it which makes it believe that it can learn from the past… However this is not necessarily true and although we may not repeat history exactly it happened before, our attempts to learn (however feeble) from the past will have at the very least some minor influences on future occurences of incidents that are similar to the past.

reply to post by xxdaniel21


american history tends to revolve around american events, which in the context of this OP means american generational changes. in this cycle the us has reached a point were its history has profound direct effects on world events, and with globalization, vice versa.
however, you should read up more on history. the ARW was an international war with international repercussions. . the us would not have won against britain without french help. not just money, but direct military involvement. help which helped bankrupt them, and according to some circles, incurred the wrath of certain british secret societies, and contributed to their crisis event, the french revolution.
the ACW was not so much about slavery as about international trade practices. northern industrialists were using their political clout in washington for protectionism which inversely was damaging to the south. and according to some circles, the war was encouraged by british clandestine groups and bankers. somebody made alot of money selling arms to the south, but it may have been the russian tsar sending his pacific fleet to america in a show of force that dissuaded direct british involvement. an act that may have incurred the wrath of certain british secret societies, who in turn helped contribute to the tsars crises event, the russian revolution.

reply to post by Subsonic


I think it began with 9/11. It was like a crack in a window that has progressively gotten worse. Though, I saw it coming before that with the OKC bombing in 1995. I haven't noticed much difference in anything in 2008. To me it has all sucked since 9/11.
Actually, it has all sucked the more the population got online and became alienated and disconnected from the outside world. Maybe the internet itself is our crisis.

History does not repeat itself. We simply look at it through the lens of the present and impose our own interpretations. This is the most important concept a historian can understand and is important in using an accurate and reliable methodology.

I've heard a lot about The Fourth Turning since my foray into the ATS's, Tickerforums, and Zerohedges of the world. It's on my to read list, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the thesis from all the stuff I've seen that sources it, and it seems to be worth considering.

The theory in The Fourth Turning I feel meshes pretty well with Kondratiev wave long cycle theory as well.
Kondratiev wave

Anyway thanks OP for making this thread it's good info, and I haven't seen it mentioned on ATS in a while.

reply to post by Subsonic


I think the theory is flawed. In the Revolutionary War and Civil War eras 80 years was not close at all to an average human lifespan. Pastuer's research on the Germ Theory of Disease eventually led to the average doubling of the human lifespan. This was brought about by years of research from numerous other scientists. The Upper classes and Royalty tended to live long in those eras. The peasantry, merchants, lawyers, skilled trademen, Etc....not so much.

Still, it is interesting. A nice thought experiment. Now, I could see this as an American phenomena every two generations or so. Even so, much of Europe was ablaze with revolutionary uprisings throughout the 19th Century. Many of the former European colonies in the 20th century.

It seems like human nature to me. We have been killing each other since the dawn of civilization.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Subsonic

 

I think the theory is flawed. In the Revolutionary War and Civil War eras 80 years was not close at all to an average human lifespan. Pastuer's research on the Germ Theory of Disease eventually led to the average doubling of the human lifespan. This was brought about by years of research from numerous other scientists. The Upper classes and Royalty tended to live long in those eras. The peasantry, merchants, lawyers, skilled trademen, Etc....not so much.

Still, it is interesting. A nice thought experiment. Now, I could see this as an American phenomena every two generations or so. Even so, much of Europe was ablaze with revolutionary uprisings throughout the 19th Century. Many of the former European colonies in the 20th century.

It seems like human nature to me. We have been killing each other since the dawn of civilization.

I'm not sure if that's true actually. People still lived to be in their 80's and 90's hundreds of years ago, just look at the lifespans of our early presidents. John Adams lived to be 90, Thomas Jefferson lived to 83, and James Madison was 85. People are NOT actually living longer, we just have far fewer people dying prematurely. Death during infancy and childhood was very common years ago, now it's relatively rare. That's what changed the "average lifespan" statistic - it was less people dying prematurely, not old people actually living longer.

So I think the theory holds, as the maximum life span of the average human was still around 80 years or so, even hundreds of years ago.

This reminds me of something an older man I worked with once had told me. Rags to rags in 3 generations. A generation to make wealth, a generation to keep and maintain it, and a generation to squander it.

reply to post by xxdaniel21


Perhaps each country has their own trauma to deal with. Okay, WWII was actually a world wide event, but if you think about it other things were going on around the world around the same time as our Civil War and Revolution. The author put the things in terms of American events because he was talking to Americans. I am sure if he were talking to people in your country he would have used events from your area. The fact is right now around the world there has been an economic down fall. The poster mentioned when our economic crisis became apparent because that is what has affected him.

reply to post by Subsonic


Actually, it kind of makes sense. History repeats itself after all those who lived through it have died or are so old that people stop paying attention to them. I see it with the younger people when it comes to communism. A lot of them think it is a great idea. (Just look at the Occupy Movement.) I was youngish when the Berlin Wall was taken down and the USSR broke up, but I still remember the "Cold War" To these kids it is all just stories. They hear the ideology of communism and they think the idea that everybody would have the same as everybody else would be cool. They have never seen the actuality that most people end up having nothing and the politicians and high ranking military have everything. They don't know about the food lines which people stood in for hours just to get a loaf of bread. They have no memories of it and the stories from those who do just aren't real enough for them, and that is my point. The reason we go through these cycles is because there are so few people who remember the last cycle. If they were still around they would see it coming and find a way to stop it. Which then makes one wonder if the cycles aren't more frequent but have been prevented by foresight. Perhaps we only see the cycles that we do not prevent.

The 100 years thing is really refering to the (conscious) collective memory, and the very end of that generation- meaning that by that time, it is usually sure that ALL the members of that generation are gone. There is no more reminders of that time, of those events. Even when the majority of people lived much shorter lives, there has always been a few exceptional people that live to 100 years.

I would add, as well, that when those people were really considered even more exceptional than they are today (average life spans were shorter) the value of elder knowledge was higher. There was less truly elder people, but they were considered valuable sources of wisdom and memory.

As it has become more common to live a long life, we revere less our old people. They are less rare.

So I propose that even with less old people, their memories were heard just as much back then, because more effort was put into listening and sharing what the few had to say.

The hypothesis is somewhat like "what we forget, we are doomed to re-live" (a quote I have seen somewhere, but don't remember by who).

And herein lies the core reason why history is such a neglected subject matter in educational curricula and why it is left to people to learn our past on their own volition--a past that's often written by the victors:

IF PEOPLE KNEW THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST, THOSE WHO SUCH 'MISTAKES' BENEFIT (TPTB) WOULD EVENTUALLY NO LONGER BE ABLE TO EXPLOIT THIS CYCLE OF MISTAKE-MAKING.

I can't really reply to every one of the replies to my original comment, but i will clarify what i meant.

The OP has used american events to sort of state the possibility of a future event. Maybe it wasn't clear he was referring to america only, or maybe i didn't interpret it correctly.
Either way, i was under the impression that the events involving america in the original post was leading to a theory on a global level - which i was finding hard to understand.

I understand the revolutionary war was a major world event, but to mix it with other, "national" events was where i became confused. Perhaps "america entering world war II" wasn't a major milestone in our history as a species.

I mean, if we were to create a mental image right now, i so far have germany playing a game of basketball with it's european counterparts when 2 years later - america comes out of the smoke, crowd cheering, etc, etc.

See where i'm getting at? The world was at war 2 years earlier. It didn't start when america arrived

But of course i will agree american events have led to global events. i.e. 9/11 - which drew many nations into a war on terror, and the iranian conflicts that have spanned over half a century, which, well we don't know the outcome of yet.

I'm from australia, by the way. Despite our alliances, and battles in world war 2, i wouldn't say we're exactly "game changers".

and as everyone knows, Gen X'ers are a cynical, squirrelly bunch. We were the latchkey kids, the punk rockers, the headbangers and the grunge generation in our teen years, the ones who would forever never amount to anything. But our generational cynicism and restlessness will prove to be our strongest traits in the coming years as we take the reigns of our world, and navigate through the next crisis.

I really don't think that this is a fair description on all Gen X'ers at all. There are people in my generation that act like this as well.