Nevertheless, I have created this website and am intrigued by the idea that there are regular forces at work on American history. I am not sure that the thesis is true, but neither am I sure that it is entirely false. It strikes a responsive chord within me, and provisionally I have decided to believe it and to test it out. It seems to me that the Strauss-Howe theory is potentially falsifiable, that is, a determined critic might be able to mount enough evidence against each of the crucial underpinning points to accomplish what is known as a "falsification." I doubt it anyone is doing that, but it is possible ... and, therefore, the theory is worth discussing.

American History is one of the least appreciated academic subjects, at least in America. This is partly because it is often taught by people whose first interest is varsity football. Then school boards and text selection committees have their way with the curriculum, so that when it comes to understanding, for instance, the struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton, if you are a Virginian, you get one view and if you are a New Yorker, you get quite another. If you are a New Yorker in Virginia, you begin to understand the problem. Facts in history are playthings of boards, committees, and the historians themselves ... and even young students with average IQs begin to understand this by the ninth grade or even earlier.

Facts in history are alway selected by the purpose of the history. History is the story told by the winners about themselves and the losers. This is scandalous, of course, but it is what happens. A conscientious reader of history will begin to notice things that are omitted, and a conscientious historian will admit them aforehand to establish his or her intellectual honesty. Conscientious readers will also learn to distinguish fact from fiction by looking up key ideas and assertions in other books (or websites). Strauss and Howe do a pretty good job of being historians, in my opinion. They are bent on establishing and then proving their thesis, of course, and so they find the facts that support it; they are pretty good at describing areas where the facts are not known; and, they are pretty good at keeping their facts straight and unadorned with fiction.

There are lots of fabrications of fact out on the web these days. Some come to you via email and assert that the Q'ran is full of prophesy of the 9/11 terrorist attack. This is pure baloney, of course, but it is rarely challenged. More often, like most of the hoaxes on the net, people read and pass this stuff along with an undercurrent in their brains telling them that "if it is written down, some part ... however small ... must be true." No, NO, definitely not! Get a grip! Professional wrestling and lots of other things you see in daily life are pure fantasy. There is definitely nothing worth reading in the National Inquirer. People do lie and cheat and sometimes for the silliest reasons--sometimes just to get a laugh, but sometimes to make a religious or political point. You have to be on guard against it.

The theory of Generations propounded by Strauss and Howe is a form of historicism, largely because it posits historical forces and mechanisms the evidence for which is indirect and inferential. But, that in itself does not make it false. Historicism is theory and not fact. Theory is created to arrange facts. If the theory does not accumulate facts and arrange them in a comprehensive and comprehensible manner, then it is wrong (or partly wrong). Historicism is nothing more than the explicit statement of historical theory.

So, go ahead, feel free to indulge yourself in the interesting experience of believing the Strauss and Howe theories, and equally, take responsibility for challenging their ideas with facts.

JB