Protests

It's hard to believe it was only this year that the Ukraine revolution occurred. It was the end of February when the Ukrainian Parliament voted to name their Speaker the President and impeach the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. This was after new protests had turned violent in mid-February, with dozens killed and over a thousand injured. Shortly after, Russia annexed Crimea, and so began a long and deadly battle over the country. 

Which comes to mind when hearing about protests in Hong Kong. They are starting out peacefully, as the Euromaidan protests did in Ukraine last November. Some initial conflict with police has led to an increase in the number of protesters. (Although in Hong Kong, the police are at least considering alternatives after the first tear gas volleys worked out poorly for them.) There are questions of autonomy and connection to their larger neighbor to the north. Although economic matters appear to be a bigger part of the Hong Kong protests:

But underlying the unrest is unhappiness in Hong Kong over a range of issues, from high housing prices and a growing income gap to an influx of mainland visitors whose customs and habits have struck locals as uncouth. In addition, many of the youths who make up a forceful component of the demonstrators have little sense of connection to mainland China and instead embrace a strong identity as Hong Kongers.

The free-form and unpredictable nature of the last few days’ protests have surprised local residents -- and spurred many of them into the streets in solidarity. 

The distinction between Mandarin-speaking mainlanders and Cantonese-speaking locals is reminiscent of the city/farm separation of the 1896 Democratic party - although, unlike William Jenning Bryan, this is celebrating the urban rather than the rural. Which is only the mildest indication that this is an Awakening - the crowds of people in non-governmental actions being the main one, the involvement of youth another. If so, though, we'd expect to see a previous High and, before that, a Crisis period.

Which works pretty well, actually. It's been 17 years since the handover/return of Hong Kong to mainland China, which could mean that the interim period has been the High. That would mean that the previous period was the Crisis - and it does appear that, from 1979 to 1997 (18 years), there was a lot of uncertainty and migration that had a significant effect on the city.

Unfortunately, the similarities suggest that it will end much the same as Ukraine (also likely Second Turning) has: An initial burst of enthusiasm, pushback from the unfriendly neighbor  - China could probably destroy any opposition by closing the airport and the harbor - and possibly military intervention. The generational model doesn't preclude a happier ending: It just seems unlikely.

Danger

In Sunday's Los Angeles Times, film critic Mark Olsen has a feature on "New Dangerous" filmmakers, entitled "Danger is the realm's new coin."

The thing that binds these films is that they all risk failure, the possibility that the sleek, knife-edged dive into the water could also be a sloppy belly-flop.

The description of a new and unexpected direction in new films made it seem possible as an sign of the Millennial generation breaking out their own style in film.

However, most of the filmmakers mentioned are Gen X and Boom, not Millennials. 

• Chris Rock (b. 1965)
• Kevin Smith (b. 1970)
• Jonathan Glazer (b. 1965)
• Jason Reitman (b. 1977)
• Alejándro G. Iñárritu (b. 1963)
• Shira Piven (b. 1961)
• Dan Gilroy (b. 1959)
• Olivier Assayas (b. 1956)

There are some Millennials, or at least they appear to be. Surprisingly difficult to track down their birth dates....

• Alex Ross Perry 
• Justin Simien - 30 years old according to The Advocate
• Gillian Robespierre - Millennial membership inferred completely on incidental evidence

In any case, the connecting thread isn't generational. The non-Millennials are middle-aged or older, and might be looking for a different direction in their individual careers as they move past young adulthood.  Perhaps some new attitudes towards film are informing their artistic choices. The Millennials' films do sound different - a romantic comedy about abortion, a satire about race set at an Ivy League college.

Maybe it's starting. Not a problem, if not - it's a bit early, yet.

Reactions

Some followup notes on that post where I talked about how not all history is about what governments do (even if most history textbooks seem to think that's the case.)

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was in August 1963. Strauss & Howe, at least, consider the Awakening to start three months later, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.    By that accounting, then, it actually isn't in an Awakening, but at the end of the High (First Turning).

I think the cycles of history are too broad to necessarily start or end on particular days. They are about how nations collectively perceive their place in history. As with other emergent phenomena, looking at the individual parts or at the margins can be misleading. A wave may move forward while individual water molecules only move up and down, and there's a difference between when the break starts and when it ends.

There is much about the March on Washington that places it in the Second Turning. It is frequently seen in spiritual terms, particularly in regards to the I Have a Dream speech from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was a group action - indeed, a large group action - that was not a government action. Another is that we have here one of the greatest speeches of all time, bringing words to fight the battle of ideas, that it seems even to fit better in the Second Turning for that reason.

For some, perhaps the Second Turning really did start on that August day.

Luddites

Sometimes there are events that don't seem to fit into the Strauss & Howe model. The original Luddites were active in the early 19th century, during the Napoleonic Wars. The middle of a Fourth Turning hardly seems like a time to be opposed to the state of technology.  It seems much more like a Second Turning activity - another of those ones where the government activity isn't the important one. There is an Awakening in the United States in the early part of the century, although it appears that Europe and the U.S. were already out of sync at this point.  (That is, the American Revolution was the Fourth Turning for the United States, while it started with the French Revolution for Europe.) Even if we could conjecture that the U.S. and United Kingdom cycles were still tied together, the Luddites are a bit too early for that to make sense.  They are either late Fourth Turning or early First Turning, and it's not clear why they would show up there rather than at a time more conducive to their goals.

There are a number of ways one might make them fit. The Luddites could be compared to the Beatniks, who were also a First Turning phenomenon that attempted to escape the strictures of the modern world. (On The Road was written in 1951, based on road trips right after the war, and Kerouac is identified as the originator of the term.) Or one could suggest that their cause was unsuccessful because it wasn't the right time, as one might say similarly of the League of Nations. This might be an instance, though, where it's better to acknowledge that reality is more diverse than a model can always cover, and not everything has to fit perfectly.

Actions

One unexpectedly useful aspect of the Strauss & Howe model is that it recognizes that history involves more than the actions of the government. Looking recently at Second Turnings (Awakenings) it becomes clear that what government is doing during those periods might be less important - may even be beside the point.

One can describe Vietnam in terms of assaults and holding actions and tactical victories or strategic defeats, but it is difficult to comprehend what happened without also looking at student movements, political changes, and public perception. By comparison, a history of World War II that only looked at military concerns would still be workably complete. While there could be questions worth asking - what anti-war protests were there? What did Manhattan Project workers think of firebombing Japanese cities? - the answers wouldn't largely change one's understanding of the conflict. In an Awakening and more so Unravelings, non-government actions are often where one finds the heart of the period.

What do non-government actions mean? They can include actions by individuals or by groups that are not directly affiliated with a government. During an Awakening, it's common to see people working together in large groups - the March on Washington, the Moratorium to End the War  -  in order to effect changes in what the government does. Individuals start to be come more significant - i.e. beyond their role as participants in larger groups - as the Unraveling takes shape. Wars can be seen in terms of particular generals, such as Schwarzkopf and Powell, while single people can distinguish themselves as entrepreneurs, inventors, and business leaders, and can be seen taking actions that will change the world as thoroughly as entire governments do during the Fourth.

1831

Awakening - 1831 - William Lloyd Garrison publishes The Liberator

A few weeks after his twenty-fifth birthday, on the first day of the year 1831, William Lloyd Garrison published the first issue of The Liberator. The front page included this observation:

...a greater revolution in public sentiment was to be effected in the free states - and particularly in New England - than at the South.  I found contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudices more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave owners themselves.

Considering that this anti-slavery weekly was published in Boston, it's clear that Garrison was not afraid to be controversial. One full page is taken up by Garrison's account of his own recent libel trial - one, that is, from actions before the existence of this paper.

In it is described how a New England ship took slaves aboard in Maryland for shipping to New Orleans. Garrison had claimed that the slaves were put in chains in a "narrow space" and treated harshly, as they were "carried to market."  The ship's owner, one Francis Todd, objected to these claims, and the general implication of being a slave trader. (Importation of slaves into the United States had been illegal since January 1, 1808.)

The court found that the slaves were never in chains, not treated harshly, given good provisions for the trip, and were "perfectly willing to come on board the ship." (They had been sold as a group to a single master - good fortune, for a slave, as families were kept together.)  Granting some polishing of the circumstances  - although Garrison doesn't object to the findings  -  the shipment was described as being little more than taking on passengers, and was seen as such by the court in the initial criminal case. Found guilty of libel, Garrison was fined fifty dollars, plus court costs.

Francis Todd asked Garrison for an apology. Garrison refused. The paper goes on to relate how Garrison defaulted on the civil suit initiated by Francis Todd in which the jury awarded damages of one thousand dollars.

Throughout this narrative, one can see a person unwilling to back down from matters of moral weight. Even though Garrison appears to have been wrong in the particular accusations which invited the libel suit (no chains, no cramped quarters, nothing at all similar to the long-illegal importation of slaves), that a Yankee-owned ship had been used to transport slaves in any manner was a vile sin that could not be easily washed away. (A short missive to Todd from the jail, while eventually admitting "I owe you no ill-will" mostly attempts to convince him of the wickedness of allowing his ship to be thus used.) Garrison himself admits - on the front page of the first issue - that his words will be severe:

No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD.

The first issue further included

• A Literary section with poetry, prose, and jokes;
• A description of slave traders in the Capitol;
• A request for submissions on the subject of the clergy's part in eradicating slavery;
• A listing of the jury members who had found against Garrison in the civil libel suit.

Despite threats and blame (e.g. for Nat Turner's rebellion) heaped upon Garrison, The Liberator would continue through the next 35 years, until December 31, 1865, a year that had seen the end of the Civil War, the death of Lincoln, and the abolition of slavery in the once again United States.

(The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison: I will be heard, 1822-1835 includes in its annotations on page 92 an objective summary of the circumstances of Todd libel case.)

Stimson

An earlier post made a point of how Henry Stimson ended up asking Harry Truman to check a proposed press release within a few hours of when the atomic bomb might have been dropped.

Further research has shown something that should have been obvious enough: The Potsdam conference, like the other Big Three conferences, was a war conference, and the Secretary of War was there.

It doesn't make the difference that large, and Stimson is still late enough according to his new schedule: If it went out at nine in the morning Potsdam time, it was still about six in the evening Japan time. The Enola Gay took off early in the morning, so (assuming a similar bombing plan) Truman had until roughly the end of an already busy work day to review it.

Power

On August 6 1945, President Harry S Truman read the following:

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.

(Although there's no direct evidence easily gleaned on the Web, the naming of the sun's source of power seems pointed at the Japanese emperor's status as a descendent of the goddess of the sun.)

Compare this to Dr. Morbius from Forbidden Planet (1956)

Ethically and technologically they were a million years ahead of humankind, for in unlocking the meaning of nature they had conquered even their baser selves, and when in the course of eons they had abolished sickness and insanity, crime and all injustice, they turned, still in high benevolence, upwards towards space.

The tone suggests either it was based on the same text, or that the writer was attempting to invoke similar emotions.  In both cases, the idea of success over fundamental building blocks is important, of  an incredible success over the natural world.

There are a number of aspects of the post-War First Turning that actually began in 1945 as the war was ending. For example, while the United Nations is considered a success of the post-War era, the United Nations Charter took effect in October 1945, after being signed in June while fighting continued in the Pacific. With one Japanese city annihilated, another atomic bomb to follow a few days later - and further bombings scheduled if needed -  victory over Japan was perhaps a given, and a feeling of triumph was perhaps already starting. The victory over the atom itself might similarly inspire an attitude of invincibility, which could lead people into that triumphalism that characterizes the First Turning. In this speech, it is easy to see this superiority - over Japan, over the atom, over those others who contributed to the final victory - starting to take shape, and potentially leading to both the triumphs and excesses of the United States over the next twenty years.

Deadline

Have you ever been unaware of an important deadline that your boss really cared about, and had to ask for some assistance at the very last minute?

Fear not, you are not the only person to whom this has happened.  One of the worst cases has to be this one, which additionally happened while the boss was off on an important business trip:

The reason for this haste is that I was informed only yesterday that, weather permitting, it is likely that the weapon will be used as early as August 1st, Pacific Ocean Time, which as you know is a good many hours ahead of Washington time.

The memo was sent on July 31, 1945. The time is not given, but 9AM in the morning in Washington would be about 1AM in Japan, so technically it was already late. It was in this way that Henry Stimson, Secretary of War,  asked his boss, President Harry S Truman, to confirm the copy for an enclosed press release to be used when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan.

Truman was still in Potsdam, finishing up the final Big Three conference. It was a few days after the Potsdam Declaration threatening Japan with total destruction, so Truman certainly had some idea of the timing involved. Little Boy had been delivered by the USS Indianapolis, and the bombing orders, with four potential targets, were already issued.

In any case, the bomb was not dropped until the following Monday, August 6. While it had to be a little embarrassing for Stimson, it's also the case that a lot was happening that week.  Even though earth-shattering events might be all around us, we're still human.

Expression

The Fourth Turning identifiers include that previously-difficult-to-comprehend Number 5:

5) "Cultural expression finds a community purpose"

These appear to be showing up more often, though.

Here's a call to action in today's Sacramento Bee: Let Art Define the Drought.

What does art have to do with the drought? Pictures of dried-up lake beds? Drawings of parched, snowless mountains? A poem about thirst?
I have a favorite example of the art of drought.

The example David Mas Masumoto (the editorialist) gives is "Migrant Mother, " a photograph taken in Nipomo California in 1936 by Dorothea Lange.

While the situation of Florence Owens Thompson, pictured here, might have been due to the Dust Bowl, it is an oversimplification to call that environmental disaster a "drought." While drought years in the 1930s were the immediate cause of massive dust storms  - and to people leaving Oklahoma and environs - the region had endured droughts before. It was the use of prairie lands for farming methods to which they weren't suited that loosened the topsoil enough to become dust in the first place. In many respects, it was another aspect of the Roaring 20s and similar excesses of that Third Turning.

In addition, the genesis of this image wasn't a "challenge" to "artists ...to create art." Lange was attempting to document the state of people during the Great Depression.  Her photography was the product of talent, training, and a desire to fulfill a particular goal - which is where art usually seems to come from, anyway.  The artist does what they feel they need to do, sometimes successfully enough to touch people who only know the art, not the artist. During a Crisis, that means letting others know that what they are going through is happening to more than just them.

Perhaps that's what Identifier Number 5 is all about.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/21/6721007/david-mas-masumoto-let-art-define.html#storylink=cpy

Cronies

This week in Russia's business community, a billionaire was arrested. Which means Vladimir Yevtushenkov was restricted to his palatial estate while investigation continues into the 2009 purchase of an oil producer, Bashneft,  by his conglomerate, AFK Sistema.

Based on this much, it could be the result of an effort to clean up the system - or at least the perception of it as being an untrammeled oligarchy. The government is asserting its authority and ensuring that nobody is above the law.


Which is reasonable for anyone who thinks this is happening in an enlightened democracy with a well-defined rule of law. In Russia, though, that is not a commonly accepted perception. A more common view is that Putin is in charge, and anything that happens in the government occurs because Putin believes it to be a good idea. Even when - as in this case - Yevtushenkov is known for being a straight arrow, paying attention to whatever person in charge.  That is at least part of the reason his arrest caused Russia's index to drop 2% as news filtered out: If even he could be targeted, nobody was safe. 

That does leave the question of Why - why does this state of affairs help Putin? One view is that Putin ally Igor Sechnin is interested in the acquisition of Bashneft,  by his company Rosneft. This would help to circumvent the sanctions implemented as a result of recent events in Ukraine. Putin is making it easier for Sechnin to add this company.

This sort of corruption does makes it look more like Russia is hovering between a First and Second Turning. 

1741

Awakening - 1741 - Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God

On July 8, 1741, in a small town in the British colony of Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards began speaking. The assembled congregation was a pious enough group which nonetheless had resisted the passionate arguments being made throughout the colonies in support of a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

In tones that were forceful but not oratorial, he began to tell them exactly what their flaw was and how it would cost them.

Their foot shall slide in due time. Deuteronomy 32:35

Starting from this prosaic biblical quote, he considers what it means to slide, to fall.  Perhaps the person starts walking, has no trouble, sees no danger, while every second there is the possibility of disaster. From here he built to an indictment of the congregation's hopes and an explication of their fears.

The best they might believe of themselves was nothing in God's eyes. The worst they might think of their potential punishment, was a shred of what they truly faced. His scrutiny could not be avoided, there was no safety, there was no hope - except for those who accepted Jesus as their Savior. By the end, people were asking "What must I do to be saved?"

It was called Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God, and it was not a sermon like those that had come before. In the Great Awakening, it was not unusual to have vast crowds following preachers who were speaking of the dangers of hell and the importance of a true conversion in Christ. The religious experience, they said, didn't have to be like the Anglican church brought from England or the Catholic rituals before that or even the focused but unimpassioned Puritans who had founded some of the  colonies in this New World.   It could be an exuberant brand of religion that went beyond going to church, doing the rituals, and going home after - even if you prayed frequently around constant reminders of your faith. Far from those old and ossifying traditions, this could be the start of a completely independent belief, one that was certain to prevail. 

Debt

It's been a while since Occupy went away. Evidently it has merely entered another stage. A group called Strike Debt paid off the student loans of some folks - full, complete, paid off, no obligation. It wasn't even the first time.

All of which sounds suspiciously like identifiers of a Fourth Turning that were previously difficult to comprehend:

4) "Civic authority revives”

5) "Cultural expression finds a community purpose"

Finding a way to help others, promote ideas, and do so as a group. It might be a change in what is happening in this Crisis.

And then there's also this lady who helps get water delivered in an area where many wells are running dry. It's all about helping out, not significantly about selfish concerns. Times are changing.

Roosevelt

The Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood is easily visible in the final minutes of 1941, a movie set in late December of that year. Soon after Pearl Harbor, people are worried about what will be happening next. With good reason: A Japanese submarine is off the coast intending to do some damage. Hilarity ensues.

A moment of consideration might make one wonder what the Roosevelt Hotel was doing in existence during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. While it was the unprecedented 9th year of his presidency, it must have been built very recently, if it's his name up there.  Or did Spielberg skimp on his research?

No, the Roosevelt really was there at the time. It was built in 1927 - so very near the end of the Roaring '20s.  Two years after opening its doors,  it was the site for the first Academy Awards in May 1929 - only a few months ahead of the Crash and the Great Depression. The Roosevelt it was named after, evidently, is Theodore.

Elected

There was really quite a bit happening during the last few months of World War II. 

Big Three (UK, US, USSR) leaders at the (end of the) Potsdam Conference

It has been pointed out that the Potsdam Conference in July 1945 was quite different from the Yalta Conference, just a few months earlier. President Roosevelt had died in April, Germany was defeated in May, and Churchill's Conservative Party had lost the recent elections in the United Kingdom.  Which is why the picture above is of Stalin, Truman, and Clement Attlee - two-thirds of the Big Three changed in a few months' time.

Except that Churchill had only resigned the office of Prime Minister a few days before this picture. The Conference started on July 17 and ended on August 2. Churchill resigned on July 26, after the ballots were fully counted. It was only then - 10 days into the conference - that Clement Attlee became the new Prime Minister.  How did Churchill get pushed out of the picture?

Well, it turns out that he wasn't completely pushed out. Here's an image from earlier in the conference:

When Nazi Germany was defeated on May 8, Churchill and Attlee had agreed it would be best to keep the coalition government going until Japan was defeated as well. The leadership of the Labour party, on the other hand,  ended the war coalition government within the following two weeks, requiring an election six weeks later. Labour may have considered it an opportune time to act, and it appears they were correct. 

The campaign started on May 23, and Churchill's conservative party was considered the likely victor. Over the past years of war, Churchill had shown himself a capable leader in a time of intense crisis. This may have led to some complacency on their part. Two weeks into the campaign, Churchill suggested that the Labour would be setting up a "gestapo" to support their policies, a comment that was considered inappropriate.

The UK votes had been tallied on July 26, three weeks after the start of the election on July 5. (The time required was in part because of traditional week-long holidays that delayed balloting in some areas. There was also some delay because of votes coming in from soldiers stationed overseas.)  The result was a very unexpected Labour victory. 

One may note that July 26, 1945, is the same day as the Potsdam Declaration, and also the same day that Little Boy was delivered to Tinian by the USS Indianapolis, and also the day the Fat Man assemblies departed New Mexico. All on that one day. Busy, busy time.

Enemies

Action is already starting on a U.S.-led coalition to take on Islamic State. The coalition includes European participants (not known for getting involved in U.S. military activities) and Arab nations (who often see Western military actions in nearby areas in a negative light). A decisive reaction, considering Obama's proposal on the subject was not even a week ago. It is reminiscent of early agreements in World War II, and makes one particular possibility for the Peak of the Crisis seem much more likely.

Russia is one of those listed as being involved, even though many of the other participants officially consider it as causing trouble of its own not that far away.  It's a truism, though, that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Which goes in a couple of different directions in this case, considering that degrading ISIS is being helpful to Syria, which is supported by Russia and opposed by the United States.

 (On a previous discussion point, here is a useful summary of What Are They Thinking Anyway?)

The Soviet Union tried to stay out of World War II, and with some initial success. When they were forced into it, they were accepted (if not always trusted) as an important part of the Allies. The big war conferences are remembered as involving the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not everyone was happy about helping (or being helped by) the Commies, but working with them was a given. The same might be true here.

Cain

A number of articles today say that Pope Francis has said that a "piecemeal" World War III has started.

Which is fully in line with what is expected from the view of this blog, that we're heading into a Crisis that is going to be on the level of the other World Wars. As we head deeper into this Turning, more people are likely to have similar thoughts, even if they don't pay attention to Strauss & Howe.

It's worth acknowledging, though, that it is a very loose interpretation of his remarks.  They were, in fact,  part of a homily given at mass celebrated at the Italian Military Memorial of Redipuglia. (That link, from Vatican Radio, uses "Pope Francis: War is 'madness' which brings destruction" as its headline. It does not mention World War III.)

 The entire section from which these stories flows is as follows:

Above the entrance to this cemetery, there hangs in the air those ironic words of war, “What does it matter to me?”  Each one of the dead buried here had their own plans, their own dreams… but their lives were cut short.  Humanity said, “What does it matter to me?”
Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction…
In all honesty, the front page of newspapers ought to carry the headline, “What does it matter to me?”  Cain would say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The homily has a continued reference to Genesis 4:9, when Cain is confronted by the Lord over the death of his brother Abel. It's more about bloodshed continuing on from there, with the same response from all of us, than a detailed justification of why World War III has started.

Again

On first glance, this makes no more sense than it ever has.

Two Westerners beheaded by Islamic State did in fact generate the expected response. President Obama has proposed direct attacks for the purposes of destroying them. Why do it again?

Granted that there is no reason to pretend they are going to go along with the United States or anyone else who doesn't like their methods to date. They could hardly be expected to be contrite, nor would anyone else have a reason to believe them if they were. That is, there's no reason for them to change anything about their actions, because no new information has been generated: The U.S. still doesn't like what they are doing, and Islamic State still has no reason to stop.

In fact, one interpretation is that this execution is a response: Message received. Attack if you want, we can kill, too.

It appears, though, there aren't many better reasons to explain it. Perhaps it's still a recruiting tool. Those might have required some additional oomph after it becomes common knowledge that anyone in the organization could be nailed by any of several U.S. launched guided weapons.

1629

Awakening - 1629 - Charles I dissolves Parliament

There is often a big blind spot when it comes to the 17th Century. Much of the century's activities are in reaction to the Reformation, so it can be hard to untangle who is in favor of what. If you are from the United States there isn't much (not nothing, just not very much) going on, since the Colonies hardly exist and most of what is happening is people founding them in the first place.

There are some interesting events, almost from the start of the century. Queen Elizabeth died in 1603,  without an heir, so the crown passed to her cousin, who became King James I. His elder son Edward died in 1612, leaving the younger son Charles (b. 1600) as heir to the throne.

When the Thirty Years War started in 1619, it was quickly viewed in England as a battle between Protestants and Catholics. Charles' brother-in-law soon lost his lands to the Holy Roman Emperor, leading to several attempts by James and later Charles to restore them and end the war. One central strategy for this was attempting to marry Charles to a Spanish Hapsburg princess. Barely 35 years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, this "Spanish match" was not a popular idea, in Spain or England.  Charles returned from the unsuccessful negotiations in late 1623, and worked with his father to encourage Parliament's support for war on Spain, instead. During 1624, as James became ill, Charles and the Duke of Buckingham continued to push for a hefty military campaign, while Parliament was in favor of a smaller naval campaign.

 (As the ultimate goal included personal gains for the family of the monarch, these efforts may have been seen as an example of corruption, not unlike the dispensation granted a century earlier for the marriage of Henry and Catherine.)

Note that at this point Charles is all of 25 years old, at which point he has been already been working  for several years on what we might call today "significant foreign policy initiatives." These are all about religious and spiritual matters - wars being fought over who is Catholic or Protestant, with domestic populations opposing actions based on how they affect doctrine or practice. Whether Charles is taking on the status quo might depend on how far back one cares to look, but his agenda certainly has opposition with entrenched powers.

Charles took the throne in March 1625 after the death of James.  Soon after, Charles I married the French (and Catholic) princess Henrietta Maria. Coming as it did during a large war between Protestants and Catholics, it raised further doubts about the new King's support of the Anglican church. He continued to push for war against Spain, but was not granted access to the funds he needed in the form of Parliamentary approval of taxes. Indeed, there was an objection by Parliament to the involvement of the Duke of Buckingham, after he had led an unsuccessful naval attack on Spain. When the Duke was assassinated in 1628,  much of the nation was relieved, but Charles was distraught.

And so, after years of battling with Parliament over appropriate actions to take, Charles opened Parliament again in 1629 to find that the members were still opposed to his policies. He attempted to adjourn the body on March 2. Parliament's response included several members holding the Speaker down in his chair long enough for the passage by acclamation of several proposals opposed to Charles' requests. Charles responded by dissolving Parliament, and ruling without one for the next 11 years.

While there was no actual requirement to have a Parliament, the king could not levy taxes without approval from that body. There were other options available for Charles to manage finances, including seeking peace with Spain and France. He began using loopholes to raise funds without taxes, such as fining men who had been legally obligated to appear at his coronation. These were ultimately insufficient to support the efforts needed as the Thirty Years War continued, and the actions were was considered "tyranny" by many in England.

In 1640, Charles would convene Parliament again. It wouldn't do him much good. Most of the members elected were opposed to his policies. He would end up raising an army in 1642, leading to the start of the English Civil War.

=======================================================================
Here's a telling paragraph from Wikipedia to support the notion that "politics in Second Turnings are incomprehensible":

In 1625, James was succeeded by his son Charles I, who immediately plunged England into an expensive and ultimately unsuccessful war with Spain, in an attempt to force the Catholic Spanish King Philip IV to intercede with the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II on behalf of Charles's brother-in-law, Frederick V, Elector Palatine, the husband of Charles's sister Elizabeth, to regain the Electorate of the Palatinate and his hereditary lands, which the Emperor had taken from him.

Awakenings

In the last few weeks, The Grid has completed 500 years of Crisis and is starting on a new Turning. The next steps will be to find significant events from the Second Turning, or Awakening, which is chosen here for a number of reasons:

• The historic appearance of Awakenings is about 40 years after (and before, of course) each Crisis.  This is easily seen without having to accept the remainder of the Strauss & Howe model. (Whereas the other Turnings - the High and Unraveling - are specific to it.)
• By splitting the time between Crisis periods in half, the mean time between these significant dates stays consistent and as small as possible. As a result, most historic events that might come up will average only about 20 years from either a Crisis or Awakening date.
• It can be possible to detect the roots of one Crisis in the events of the previous Awakening. The genesis of the Spanish Armada, for example, can be seen in the rejection by Henry the Eighth of his Spanish queen. 

While the Crisis events usually tie in to the major war that occurs at that time, the distinct voice of the Awakening often appears in text - a speech or a sermon, a law or a legal decision. The struggles of the time are between ideas, and it is in words that ideas fight it out.

Territorial

Well that didn’t take long.

The United States has conducted Freedom of Navigation exercises in the Black Sea for more than 30 years. On the one hand, it’s a bit provocative to intentionally go into the area behind someone’s land just to show that you can do it. Then again, Russia has been provocative itself in similar ways, lately.  Most of the time, there’s some yelling across diplomatic channels when these things happen. Sometimes - although it has been a while - there is more than that, such as the “bumping incident” from February 1988. This week, it appears to starting up again, as Canada says its ships were “buzzed” by Russian planes. Earlier this year, a United States ship was given a similar welcome.

Meanwhile, in a different spat over territorial limits, the Chinese government has - albeit more politely - asked that the United States stop with the spy planes. After the 2001 incident, it’s an understandable if not exactly a reasonable response: The planes are over international waters where most nations don't assert a claim - and if they do, the United States will gladly show them the niceties of maritime law. The Soviets used to do reconnaissance against the U.S. using converted bombers, without significant objections.

Both of these, though, are long-standing objections to how the United States does what it wants to do. They involve standard military operations in a specified and controlled regime with definite goals. This can be contrasted with the other big foreign policy news of the day. President Obama is proposing a re-entry into the Middle East, continuing a pattern of foreign intervention that he was largely elected to avoid, and with some cavalier attitudes toward the Congress’ role in waging war that might be problematic in the longer term. 

Which is to say, there are a number of ways it could go wrong. Disgust with the President acting too much like his predecessors could lead to an election where none of the proposed candidates is good enough. If enough people see the President as chipping away at checks and balances there might be a related push to reaffirm them in much the way the Confederacy tried. Or this could simply escalate into a Big American Satan takes on Defenders of Holy Islam situation that ends with decisive-but-probably not-world-ending nuclear exchange.That is particularly when compared to the possible outcomes from either the China or Russia/Ukraine situations, neither of which really appear to have path that leads to a Peak Crisis. 

iPod

One of the fun things about looking through history is the realization of how close some events were to one another. It certainly makes sense that the Potsdam Resolution, the delivery of Little Boy to Tinian and the departure of Fat Man from New Mexico would have all happened on the same day - some coordination would have been desirable, after all. Looking at what happens and realizing that they were so nearly simultaneous, though, gives a reality to them all.

The original iPod was released on October 23, 2001. That means it was barely a month after the September 11 attacks, a few weeks after the invasion of Afghanistan, two weeks after two anthrax letters had been mailed to senators in Washington D.C. The launch of a new Apple product was not the main topic on everyone's mind.

For that matter, Apple was not followed quite the way it is today. Steve Jobs had returned four years earlier, and most of his actions had been about keeping the company alive and focused on areas where it could succeed. The iMac had been a very successful Mac model, which still wasn't saying a lot. The use of the "i" prefix indicated that the iPod was a next step down the same road - possibly the one Steve Jobs alluded to in a 1995 interview, when he said he had a way to rescue Apple.

"Lame" was one famous response. There were others, though, that thought it was going to be an exceptional product. Even if it was expensive ($400), not that large (5GB), limited in use (a music player only), and inherently a niche product (only worked with Macs with Firewire and then-new iTunes), the ability to easily carry and play a music library was going to be big. And it was. The iPod was profitable, popular, and a starting point for the Apple "ecosystem" that ties people to their music libraries, their libraries to their devices, and their devices to each other.  All of which lead to Apple becoming one of the largest companies (by market cap) ever.

Nothing lasts forever, though. When Apple updated their website and online store as part of the big iPhone 6 / Apple Watch announcements today, the original iPod design went away. The iPod Touch and Shuffle and Nano are still available, but the iPod Classic - which had up to 160GB of space in its latest iteration - is no more.

Slow

Some days, it’s slow. Nothing wrong with that. 

In Ukraine, there’s a cease-fire. Both sides are blaming the other for violating the ceasefire, but there is a decided lack of outrage outside of the two sides themselves. Russia may use the time to position more assets, Ukraine to build up against likely strategic targets. It sounds as if Ukraine was the reluctant supporter of the cease-fire, so  perhaps it’s part of Putin’s master plan.

In Iraq, the parliament replaced Prime Minister Maliki in an attempt to improve relations between the Shiites (who have been  mostly in control since U.S. invasion) and Sunnis (who have been alienated enough to welcome, in some cases, the Islamic State. Which has been on the attack but hasn't beheaded any Westerners this week.

in the United States, there’s a concern about a respiratory virus that is making kids in the Midwest sick. Enterovirus D86 (EV-D86) is related to the common cold, and an increase of cases has been reported to the Center for Disease Control. There have been some suggestions that it’s not news because it’s happening in flyover country (i.e. in the midwest, not on the coasts.).

Tomorrow, Apple will have its grand event to unveil the iPhone 6 and, rumor has it, the iWatch. Perhaps they will be able to push into a larger market share worldwide. Perhaps it will not be as big a deal as all that. 

Not every day has to be the biggest thing ever. 

Clothing

Following up a few months later on The Groovy Guru: Take a look at the clothes being worn by everyone but the CONTROL agents. It's not so much that they are different from today's clothes as how different they are. Nothing that is being worn appears to have a subsequent equivalent in the fashions of today's early 21st Century.

Issues with clothing can be an indicator of the Second Turning - something about what we show to the outside world becomes a big deal when everyone is trying to figure out their inside world. The Puritans can be traced to the Vestments Controversy of the late 16th century. Some had decided that far too little had changed when the Church of England had split off from Rome, considering that the vestments being worn at Mass were still the same, despite the other recent changes. There's more to it, but trying to make sense of the details will bring to mind another Second Turning indicator: The issues of the time quickly become incomprehensible.

Take a look at what Judy Garland is wearing in Meet Me in St. Louis (set in 1904), and again you'll see frills and patterns and such that are unimaginable in any other time. The "Sunday Clothes" of Hello Dolly (set in 1890) similarly are from a very particular point in history.

Jumping forward to the next Awakening: Researching what was happening in Swinging London turned out to be trickier than expected, but let's trust Roger Ebert with this one:

In one sequence, a fashion photographer shoots '60s fashions, and the clothes, which look like outlandish science-fiction fantasies, are in fact identical to costumes worn during posing sessions in Antonioni's "Blow Up" (1967).

Flower children, punk, new wave - all of them bring to mind a particular look, and almost none of those looks survive - except as inspiration for the future.

And while using a science fiction film set In The 23rd Century may require caution, it's also true that clothes very similar to these

were available for purchase in 1982 (late Second Turning), when the movie was released.

Now

Turned on The Spectacular Now, expecting to see a Civic coming of age story or something similar.

But rather quickly it didn't seem like it was working. And the possibility came to mind that maybe it was a not a good match for the Four Stories model - the idea that people from a particular generation tend to set up a standard story that fits them best, and that stories will tend to do better if targeted in that way. That is, this one should have been a Heroic arc, with success coming through working with friends and sacrifice in support of the greater good.

Instead, though, the main character is clearly Bad right from the start.  Not a bad person, really  - he seems to be the guy at parties who is Liked and maybe even Well Liked - but he obviously and seriously has a drinking problem right from the start. The Civic generations - what were called Hero archetypes in The Fourth Turning and later books - might be depicted as flawed but not so severely. That makes it easier for their stories to focus on winning their struggles, while Nomad stories are more often about redemption. If anything, though, this film was looking like it matched the "everyone is Doomed or Damned" model of an Artist story. Still, there was stretches where it seemed like it had to be heading in a redemptive direction, so maybe not that ... but ultimately it just couldn't be Heroic. Which didn't fit well with high school students who were clearly in recent times.

Of course, Four Stories is a simple model of a complex world, which certainly may have flaws. There's not a problem if it doesn't explain everything - that helps ensure that it's being honestly compared with it's subject. Maybe there's something to be added to it....

Eventually, though,  the disconnect about where it seemed to be heading became too much. To the extent that I had to check where the story came from and sure enough, the screenwriter is Generation X, as is the director. Although the original novel is from a late Boomer (Tim Tharp, 1957), not a Reactive. Which makes him the same age as Cameron Crowe, who came to mind because Sutter seems like a much more flawed Lloyd Dobler.

All of which might explain why it didn't do super well at the box office, although critics - mostly Boomer and GenX - did like it. It was marketed in one direction but with a narrative that doesn't match what's expected. It does, in fact, turn into a perfectly fine redemptive story, so it might have worked if marketed that way - i.e. as a troubled teen redemption story rather than romantic comedy or coming of age.

1534

Before the Spanish pushed the Moors out of Europe, they weren't exactly Spanish, since Spain wasn't exactly Spain. Preceding the Grenada War was a period of internal warfare, the War of Castilian Succession.  This ended when Queen Isabella of Castille overcame the other potential Castilian monarchs, and then married a fellow monarch in a union that cemented control over most of what we call Spain. The other monarch was King Ferdinand of Aragon. Ferdinand and Isabella's youngest surviving daughter, born in 1485, was Catherine of Aragon.

Henry VIII didn't have much choice in marrying Catherine: He was only 11 when they were engaged. She had been the wife of his brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales for only a short time when he died. His father, Henry VII, probably wanted to continue in alliance with the powerful kingdom of Spain...but may also have wanted to avoid paying back her dowry.  Her first marriage did complicate this goal, since being related (i.e. brother- and sister-in-law) was a lawful impediment to being married. As Henry's father and Catherine's mother were in favor of it, Pope Julius II granted a dispensation to allow the engagement and eventual wedding.

Henry married Catherine in 1509, soon after he became king. For nearly 20 years the marriage worked well in most respects. However, it ultimately yielded only one surviving child, a daughter, Mary (born 1516). While the laws of succession gave the preference to males, females were not prohibited from inheriting the throne. Henry nonetheless became focused on the need for a male heir. This may have been because of the recent end of the War of the Roses, which was fought largely over questions of succession. A legitimate male heir would ensure that such a war would not be required again. 

It was not uncommon for marriages to be ended, despite official Church teaching to the contrary. There were rather significant problems in this case. Catherine was naturally opposed to an annulment and divorce that would remove her as Queen. The dispensation granted two decades before would have to be overturned by the current Pope, potentially weakening the image of the papacy as an unbiased (and infallible) observer. And when Henry sent his representatives to Rome in 1527, the Pope himself was a prisoner there. The city had been invaded by the forces of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V - a nephew of Catherine.

Adding insult to injury, many of the invaders were followers of Martin Luther. Henry was certainly aware of the new Protestant movements that were throwing the continent into turmoil. Soon after Martin Luther had posted his 95 Theses in Wittenberg, Henry had written a rebuttal that  earned him the title "Defender of the Faith" from Pope Leo X. It is rich in irony to the modern reader, particularly sections where Henry chastises Luther for actions resembling what Henry would do only a few years later.  It also raises the question: What turned that devoutly Catholic king so strongly against the Church?

Those who wish to see Henry in a positive light could point to the ideal of a country free from foreign influence. While writing in defense of the Church, his eyes may have been opened to the very real corruption that Luther righteously opposed. Perhaps his reasonable concern over his heirs became an obsession, or he may have truly believed that his will was the Will of God. It does seem worthwhile to at least consider what was said by him (or in his name) as the simple truth: His marriage to Katherine was against God's law, and was the reason for the lack of a male heir. Those who are religious can view good times as God's favor, and bad times as God's punishment. Henry may have truly believed that he was being punished, that the most likely reason to be punished was his admittedly non-traditional marriage,  and that the appropriate resolution was annulment.

It's also worth noting that the marriage was another indication of corruption: With enough money and influence, the Pope himself can be convinced to support the ruling class in their minor squabbles.   Henry VIII would have been open to rebelling against the previous generations' corrupt practices. If these justifications are insufficient, however, there were also some definite  secular  advantages to the King being head of his own church: The ability to marry as he wished, to keep for the royal treasury payments previously made to Rome, and the option to confiscate Church property.

In any case, Parliament soon passed a series of laws separating the Church of England from Rome, culminating in the 1534 Act of Supremacy. This confirmed that the King, not the Pope, was "supreme head on earth of the Church in England."

Ultimately, Henry's desire for a male heir would be fulfilled by his third wife, Jane Seymour. After Edward's short reign, Mary would follow him to the throne, but it would fall to another daughter, Elizabeth, to finish the battle with Spain. She would be the one who helped fight them off when her fleet, the British Navy, took on the Spanish Armada some fifty-four years after the break with Rome.

Recruiting

The brutal executions disseminated in full motion video by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq have been baffling. Getting the attention of the United States on their successful but small operation seems a grave strategic error. Air strikes with minimal risk to the U.S. military have been the inevitable and easily predicted response. Ransoms will also be more difficult to obtain, information on the other actions of their self-described caliphate will be more widely disseminated, and support to their enemies is likely to increase.

In addition to increasing immediate pushback, it would seem to increase the chances of a Last Crusade as the peak of the Crisis. Even those who aren't cognizant (or are morally opposed to the arguments) of The Fourth Turning have to recognize the likelihood that eventually the United States will be going to war again with people who haven't been as friendly as preferred.

This morning, it starts to make sense. Al-Qaeda has announced that it is starting a branch in India. A request for support was also made. There is bound to be a limited supply of funds and fighters for this sort of effort, and Islamic State is ahead in the marketing campaign, with more public awareness due to these high profile videos. 

(That article also includes business buzzwords ("growth market", "struggling international brand"), which is unfortunately difficult to avoid doing in this context.  It's a bit too light-hearted, though, for groups that have made high-definition beheadings common, or murdered dozens aboard airplanes in a plot to murder even more in iconic buildings.)

Nonetheless, it at least gives a rational explanation for their actions (albeit in an Economic Man context that probably ignores some important motivations): By being more visible than their competition Islamic State is better able to acquire the lifeblood of their operation: money, supporters, and recruits.

Hacks

Celebrity nudes - the key to any blog marketing plan.

Seriously, though, there is a lesson here for the NSA and anyone interested on weakening encryption and other security protocols in the name of public safety.  While backdoors can be more easily exploited by whoever has put them in,  it's still a weakness with the potential to be attacked. Especially if there's the possibility of a reward, whether it's money, fame, or, um, yeah.

With up to 4 billion people willing and able to get a jackpot like this, someone will find the back doors and exploit them.  And if people start getting used to being intercepted, others will find a reason to do it too.

Oh, and when it comes to password security, remember that bigger is better.

Trinity

September 2 is the 69th anniversary of the Japanese surrender that ended World War II.

Truman declared it the official Victory over Japan day. The surrender had been made on August 15, which is when most of the celebrations happened.

The war wasn't officially over, though, until that 22-minute ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri. 

It was only six weeks earlier, on July 16, 1945, that the Trinity test took place in New Mexico. 48 days before that ceremony, 30 days before the informal surrender - three weeks before the dropping of the first atomic bomb on August 6. 

"Trinity Test Fireball 16ms" by Berlyn Brixner - http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/photos/images/PA-98-0520.jpeg.
Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Which isn't to say that the testing regime was rushed: Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy uranium gun-type weapon, which wasn't even tested. The mechanism was simple enough that it was expected definitely to work. Trinity was a test of the Fat Man plutonium implosion weapon, which was much less certain of success. Indeed, one reason given for using it in war (rather than as a non-combat demonstration) was that it was not certain to work again.

Still, a lot happened in that six week period between Trinity and the Missouri. A quick sample:

July 16: Trinity test, the first atomic explosion, in New Mexico. That same day, the USS Indianapolis departs San Francisco for island of Tinian,  carrying the components of the Little Boy weapon that will be dropped on Hiroshima.

July 20: B-29s of the 509th Composite Group at Tinian practice dropping "pumpkin bombs," inert models of the Fat Man weapon. (The bombers had arrived there in June, a little over a month before.)

July 26: Potsdam Declaration - Japan warned to surrender immediately or face "utter destruction." The USS Indianapolis and the Little Boy components arrive at Tinian. Meanwhile, three Fat Man "pre-assemblies"  (i.e. not including plutonium) depart New Mexico on B-29s.

July 30: En route from Tinian to Guam, USS Indianapolis is sunk by torpedoes from a Japanese submarine shortly after midnight. 880 men believed to have survived the attack end up in the water, most of them with only life vests.

August 2: Fat Man pre-assemblies arrive at Tinian. Survivors of USS Indianapolis located.  Only 321 men are still alive.

August 6: Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima.

August 9: Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki. Soviet Union declares war on Japan.

August 12: Emperor Hirohito informs his family that he intends to surrender.

August 15: Japanese surrender announced.

August 29: USS Missouri arrives in Tokyo Bay.

September 2: Japanese surrender signed aboard the USS Missouri between 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM. World War II ends.

Some times pass quickly, others don't.

Deterrence

That earlier post about Russian military competence mentioned uncertainty about the usability of the former Soviet nuclear deterrence force. That came from the P.J. O'Rourke book Give War a Chance - published 1992:

Between mechanical incompetence and Soviet personnel attitude, it should be a real show if World War III ever does break out. There'll be missiles going all over the place. I pity the poor Eskimos when those CCCP MIRVs come over the pole. And Iceland will be a cinder.

Note that this is well over 20 years ago, from the epilogue for coverage of the 1988 Moscow summit. It's not as if nuclear deterrence has been a primary goal of the Russians since then, and there don't appear to be many improvements on the Soviet ICBMs either. However, there have been recent efforts by the Russians to make general improvements to their forces - often with limited interest in adherence to inherited treaty obligations. Perhaps there is something to worry about there...or perhaps crony capitalism will have similar effects to central planning when weapon systems are delivered. And perhaps a dependence on Ukrainian industry is related to everything that's happening here.

Does this have anything to do with generational theories of history? While this may have wandered far from the starting point, the fundamental claim (that a conflict with Russia is unlikely to escalate to by the Crisis war for the United States) depends on the assessment that Russia is in an Awakening. Afghanistan was called "Russia's Vietnam" - but not until it was nearly over, and without any significant domestic protest. (A CIA assessment from the late 1980s mentions 15 notable antiwar protests, one of which was "five to ten demonstrators on the 8th anniversary of the Soviet invasion." Not exactly the Moratorium to End the War.)  These much more minor incursions into Ukraine are already inspiring  protests - to the extent possible - suggesting that this will be the real Russian equivalent to Vietnam.