Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

I don't think anyone over the age of 80 has much say in things anyway...

Matt1989 wrote:I don't think anyone over the age of 80 has much say in things anyway...

My mother did.

Sincerely,

John

John,

Just discovered your website today and it has helped me understand the disparate things that I've observed but could not explain like for example noticing the insanity of the tech bubble and the collective denial that kept it going (dot.coms doing wildly successful public offerings based on nonsensical web-based company ideas) and that right after it burst is when the real estate market exploded. To understand that this bubble started in the mid-90s was helpful in putting this mess in context. That was when I noticed many more new cars on the streets that werent owned but either were leased or purchased on credit. I also noticed that the profit model for credit cards was based on lending money to people who could not pay.

Most importantly, the generational theory makes such common and logical sense that I'm grateful to know about it.

While I could ask lots more "what do I do with my bank account, 401k money questions" (I'm all cash right now) I wanted to ask you about how do you account for race in your model. The model generalizes across a broad swath of Americans, but there is a tangible racial divide in economic circumstance and racial stigmatization for most non-whites still exists. Obama is the racial exception that will prove the rule that all blacks could make it if they just tried which conventional wisdom says that they wilfully refuse to do. Where does the slave trade, Jim Crow, the "Third" World and the clear racial relationships between European-descended and African-descended people fit into the generational dynamics. I noticed one of your predictions accounted for gender roles (women assuming more traditional family roles) but what are your thoughts about racial roles and why they were are are the way they are? Or am I asking too much from Generational Dynamics?

AinBmore wrote: > I wanted to ask you about how do you account for race in your
> model. The model generalizes across a broad swath of Americans,
> but there is a tangible racial divide in economic circumstance and
> racial stigmatization for most non-whites still exists. Obama is
> the racial exception that will prove the rule that all blacks
> could make it if they just tried which conventional wisdom says
> that they wilfully refuse to do. Where does the slave trade, Jim
> Crow, the "Third" World and the clear racial relationships between
> European-descended and African-descended people fit into the
> generational dynamics. I noticed one of your predictions accounted
> for gender roles (women assuming more traditional family roles)
> but what are your thoughts about racial roles and why they were
> are are the way they are? Or am I asking too much from
> Generational Dynamics?

Race is just one of a collection of demographic factors that
determine fault lines during a generational Crisis era. Other
factors are language, geographical location, and religion.

Race has never been a major crisis era fault line in America. Even
in the Civil War, the fault line was between the North and the South,
with most southern blacks supporting the South and most northern
blacks supporting the North.

However, race has been a major political fault line during all three
of the Awakening eras. Other political fault lines in the past few
decades have been things like women's lib and gay rights.

Sincerely,

John

It seems overly reductionist to reduce race to a mere demographic factor (which I think means you don't have to come up with an explanation for its own internal dynamics) and then contradictory to use the "support" that enslaved people in the south showed for their enslavers and "support" that 3rd class citizens (or mere residents - the Dred Scott decision said they were not citizens) showed for the North during that same period. Why were gender dynamics worthy of a prediction thus suggesting that you think that this is not a mere demographic factor but race is a static demographic factor? I think racial dynamics is also worthy of working into your generational dynamics model. Also to limit race to part of the Awakening period is 100% ahistorical. Black people did not just appear in the 1960s nor did the question of the color line (to borrow from WEB DuBois from the early 20th century).

I guess what it seems to suggest to me as I type this is that perhaps your Generational Dynamics theory in the US assumes middle class white people as the default average person. To account for diversity in lived experience disrupts the theory's probative value.

John wrote: Even in the Civil War, the fault line was between the North and the South,
with most southern blacks supporting the South and most northern
blacks supporting the North.

This seems odd. How can anyone know this?

Many Southern blacks fought for the Union.

AinBmore wrote: > It seems overly reductionist to reduce race to a mere demographic
> factor (which I think means you don't have to come up with an
> explanation for its own internal dynamics) and then contradictory
> to use the "support" that enslaved people in the south showed for
> their enslavers and "support" that 3rd class citizens (or mere
> residents - the Dred Scott decision said they were not citizens)
> showed for the North during that same period.

You asked me the role of race in the Generational Dynamics model and
I answered your question. Generational Dynamics theory applies to
all places and times in history, and in that large context, race is
one of several demographic factors that create crisis era fault
lines.

In the case of the Civil War, the black slaves might well have risen
up and tried to exterminate all whites, but they didn't. Many
southerners were afraid that they might try, and if they had, then
the story would be different. But they didn't.

That's not to say that race isn't important as a political issue. In
fact, it's been a major political issue from the beginning or the
Republic. But the fact remains that the Civil War was not fought
between blacks and whites. It was fought between the North and the
South.

If you're trying to understand Generational Dynamics, then you have
to be careful to put your political attitudes aside. Whatever your
attitude is toward race, you have to sort out its political
importance and its generational importance. That's the question that
I tried to answer for you.

If you were looking for a political answer to your question, then you
asked the wrong person.

However, gender issues are quite different from race issues. There
have been many crisis wars throughout history where one race tried to
exterminate another race. Rwanda in 1994 is a good example. But to
my knowledge, there's never been a crisis war where women tried to
exterminate all men (though it may have seemed that way in the 90s),
or vice versa. Race and gender may be comparable in the political
arena, but they're incomparable in generational analysis.

Sincerely,

John

Dear Matt,

Matt1989 wrote: > This seems odd. How can anyone know this? Many Southern blacks
> fought for the Union.

Why does that seem odd?

At any rate, I haven't researched this issue for some time, but I
did write up what I know in Chapter 3 of my long-languishing book:

** Chapter 3 - Visceral Causes of Crisis Wars
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... ok2.causes

You may find the answer to your question there.

Sincerely,

John

John wrote: Why does that seem odd?

I imagine most slaves were not polled at the time, and if they were, they had many reasons to be dishonest.

Matt I agree. I'm not sure why my question about race reflects a mere political attitude while John's attitude is politically neutral. I'm asking about a dynamic and divide that is very real and distorts perceptions and behavior which does not seem to be accounted for in your model which is about perceptions and behavior.

Positing that women have not risen up to kill men or black slaves did not rise up to kill southern plantation owners (there was a system of domination and control that was extremely destructive and effective) certainly is a woefully insufficient measure of whether or not you need a fuller account for race and for that matter class in your model.

I think that not having an explanation of these dynamics in your model weakens its persuasiveness and reflects no less a political attitude than my raising the question.

It may require you to broaden some of your reading to fill in on the history to pick up the patterns but in light of how much you've done already it would be great for you to add these to your model.

Looking forward to reading more of your posts. I repeated some of the "Greater Depression" predictions to friends and family and from their odd silence I think they wanted to reach for the phone to call for mental health services (for me).