Richard Howe

Richard Howe

Richard Howe, later to be Admiral Lord Richard Howe and Viscount Howe of Langar, was born in London in 1726. These parental connections, plus Howe’s considerable talents, led to a fast start in a distinguished career.Howe attended Eton and, as was common for that day, began his naval career at age 14. He later saw service in the Pacific and the West Indies. In July 1758, during the French and Indian War, Howe’s older bother George was killed in fighting near Fort Ticonderoga. Richard Howe, who succeeded his brother as viscount, long remembered this act of kindness.In 1762, Howe was elected to Parliament, where he would later oppose many of the taxation and regulatory efforts imposed by that body. During this time, Howe became acquainted with Benjamin Franklin, who regularly played chess with Howe’s widowed sister. The two men worked together to foster a peace plan, but were thwarted by the government of Lord North.While maintaining his sympathies for the Americans, Howe’s devotion to peace did not extend to accepting independence. In July 1776, he accepted the command of British naval forces in North American waters, teaming with his brother, Major General William Howe, three years his junior, who commanded the British Army in the colonies. They sought to stem the fighting by holding a peace conference on Staten Island in September, but the meeting ended in failure. His forces performed well at New York and Newport, but after the arrival of Admiral John Byron, Howe returned to England.In 1782, when his rivals fell from power in London, Howe resumed public service by accepting command of the English Channel fleet. In 1797 he quelled a mutiny at Spithead, where he drew on the trust he had developed with the common sailors over many years.Howe was known to his men as “Black Dick,” a reference to his swarthy complexion that had developed from years of exposure to the elements and perhaps also to his somber nature.

Richard Howe, Earl Howe

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Richard Howe, Earl Howe, also called (1758–82)4th Viscount Howe, or (1782–88) Viscount Howe of Langar, (born March 8, 1726, London—died Aug. 5, 1799), British admiral who commanded the Channel fleet at the Battle of the First of June (1794) during the French Revolutionary Wars.

Howe entered the navy in 1740, saw much active service, especially in North America, and was rapidly promoted. By the death of his elder brother, on July 6, 1758, he became Viscount Howe—an Irish peerage. In 1762 he was elected member of Parliament for Dartmouth. During 1763 and 1765 he was a member of the Admiralty board and from 1765 to 1770 was treasurer of the navy. In 1770 he was promoted rear admiral and in 1775 vice admiral. In 1776 he was appointed to the command of the North American station, where, in his sympathy for the colonists, he tried conciliation. When France declared war and sent a powerful squadron under the Count d’Estaing, Howe was put on the defensive, but he baffled the French admiral at Sandy Hook and defeated his attempt to take Newport in Rhode Island by a fine combination of caution and calculated daring. On the arrival of Adm. John Byron from England with reinforcements, Howe left the station in September, returning to England.

On the change of ministry in March 1782 he was selected to command in the English Channel, and in the autumn of that year he carried out the difficult operation of the final relief of Gibraltar. The French and Spaniards had in all 46 line-of-battle ships to his 33, and his ships were ill-equipped and ill-manned. But Howe handled his ships well, the enemy was awkward and unenterprising, and the operation was brilliantly successful. From Jan. 28 to April 16, 1783, he was first lord of the Admiralty, and again from December 1783 until August 1788, in William Pitt’s first ministry.

On the outbreak of the French Revolutionary War in 1793 he was again named to the command of the Channel fleet. In 1794 he won the epoch-making victory of the First of June, a victory not excelled by any of his successors in the war, not even by Horatio Nelson, since they had his example to follow and were served by more highly trained squadrons than his. In 1797 he was called on to pacify the mutineers at Spithead, and he showed great influence with the seamen.

In 1782 he was created Viscount Howe of Langar and in 1788 Baron and Earl Howe.

Richard C. Howe

Richard C. Howe (January 20, 1924 – June 19, 2021) [1] was an American politician and judge. At the time of his retirement in 2003, he was the only person in Utah history to serve as a member of the State House of Representatives, the State Senate, and the State Supreme Court. [1] He served on the Utah Supreme Court from 1980 to 2002, [2] and was the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court from 1998 to April 2002. [3]

Born in South Cottonwood, Utah, Howe attended Woodstock Elementary School in Murray, and graduated from Granite High School. [1] He received a B.S. degree in speech from the University of Utah in 1943, and received his law degree from the University of Utah College of Law in 1948. [3]

Howe served eighteen years in the Utah State Legislature: six terms in the Utah House of Representatives from 1951 to 1958, and from 1969 to 1972, [1] and two terms in the Utah Senate, from 1972 to 1978. During this time he served as a Judge in the Murray City Court from 1953 to 1955, and as Speaker of the House from 1971 to 1972. [3]

In December 1980, Utah Governor Scott M. Matheson appointed Howe to a seat on the Utah Supreme Court vacated by the resignation of Justice D. Frank Wilkins. [4] Howe served as Associate Chief Justice from 1988 to 1993, and became Chief Justice in March 1998. [1] He also served as the Judicial Council's representative on the Utah State Retirement Membership Council. Howe retired on December 31, 2002, [5] and was succeeded on the Court by Jill Parrish. [6]

Royal Navy: Admiral Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe

Born March 8, 1726, Richard Howe was the son of Viscount Emanuel Howe and Charlotte, Countess of Darlington. The half-sister of King George I, Howe's mother wielded political influence which aided in her sons' military careers. While his brothers George and William pursued careers in army, Richard elected to go to sea and received a midshipman's warrant in the Royal Navy in 1740. Joining HMS Severn (50 guns), Howe took part in Commodore George Anson's expedition to the Pacific that fall. Though Anson eventually circumnavigated the globe, Howe's ship was forced to turn back after failing to round Cape Horn.

As the War of the Austrian Succession raged, Howe saw service in the Caribbean aboard HMS Burford (70) and took part in the fighting at La Guaira, Venezuela in February 1743. Made an acting lieutenant after the action, his rank was made permanent the next year. Taking command of the sloop HMS Baltimore in 1745, he sailed off the coast of Scotland in support of operations during the Jacobite Rebellion. While there, he was badly wounded in the head while engaging a pair of French privateers. Promoted to post-captain a year later, at the young age of twenty, Howe received command of the frigate HMS Triton (24).

The Seven Years' War:

Moving to Admiral Sir Charles Knowles' flagship, HMS Cornwall (80), Howe captained the vessel during operations in the Caribbean in 1748. Taking part in the October 12 Battle of Havana, it was his last major action of the conflict. With the arrival of peace, Howe was able to retain sea-going commands and saw service in the Channel and off Africa. In 1755, with the French & Indian War underway in North America, Howe sailed across the Atlantic in command of HMS Dunkirk (60). Part of Vice Admiral Edward Boscawen's squadron, he aided in the capture of Alcide (64) and Lys (22) on June 8.

Returning to the Channel Squadron, Howe took part in the naval descents against Rochefort (September 1757) and St. Malo (June 1758). Commanding HMS Magnanime (74), Howe played a key role in capturing Ile de Aix during the former operation. In July 1758, Howe was elevated to title of Viscount Howe in the Irish Peerage following the death of his older brother George at the Battle of Carillon. Later that summer he participated in raids against Cherbourg and St. Cast. Retaining command of Magnanime, he played a role in Admiral Sir Edward Hawke's stunning triumph at the Battle of Quiberon Bay on November 20, 1759.

A Rising Star:

With the war concluding, Howe was elected to Parliament representing Dartmouth in 1762. He retained this seat until his elevation to the House of Lords in 1788. The following year, he joined the Admiralty Board before becoming Treasurer of the Navy in 1765. Fulfilling this role for five years, Howe was promoted to rear admiral in 1770 and given command of the Mediterranean Fleet. Elevated to vice admiral in 1775, he held sympathetic views pertaining to the rebelling American colonists and was an acquaintance of Benjamin Franklin.

The American Revolution:

As a result of these feelings, the Admiralty appointed him to command the North American Station in 1776, in the hope that he could aid in quieting the American Revolution. Sailing across the Atlantic, he and his brother, General William Howe, who was commanding British land forces in North America, were appointed as peace commissioners. Embarking his brother's army, Howe and his fleet arrived off New York City in the summer of 1776. Supporting William's campaign to take the city, he landed the army on Long Island in late August. After brief campaign, the British won the Battle of Long Island.

In the wake of the British victory, the Howe brothers reached out to their American opponents and convened a peace conference on Staten Island. Taking place on September 11, the Richard Howe met with Franklin, John Adams, and Edward Rutledge. Despite several hours of discussions, no agreement could be reached and the Americans returned to their lines. While William completed the capture of New York and engaged General George Washington's army, Richard was under orders to blockade the North American coast. Lacking the necessary number of vessels, this blockade proved porous.

Howe's efforts to seal American ports were further hampered by the need to provide naval support to army operations. In the summer of 1777, Howe transported his brother's army south and up the Chesapeake Bay to commence its offensive against Philadelphia. While his brother defeated Washington at Brandywine, captured Philadelphia, and won again at Germantown, Howe's ships worked to reduce the American defenses in the Delaware River. This complete, Howe withdrew the fleet to Newport, RI for the winter.

In 1778, Howe was deeply insulted when he learned of the appointment of a new peace commission under the guidance of the Earl of Carlisle. Angered, he submitted his resignation which was reluctantly accepted by the First Sea Lord, the Earl of Sandwich. His departure was soon delayed as France entered the conflict and a French fleet appeared in American waters. Led by the Comte d'Estaing, this force was unable to catch Howe at New York and was prevented from engaging him at Newport due to a severe storm. Returning to Britain, Howe became an outspoken critic of Lord North's government.

These views kept him from receiving another command until North's government fell in early 1782. Taking command of the Channel Fleet, Howe found himself outnumbered by the combined forces of the Dutch, French, and Spanish. Adroitly shifting forces when needed, he succeeded in protecting convoys in the Atlantic, holding the Dutch in port, and conducting the Relief of Gibraltar. This last action saw his ships deliver reinforcements and supplies to the beleaguered British garrison which had been under siege since 1779.

Wars of the French Revolution

Known as "Black Dick" due to his swarthy complexion, Howe was made First Lord of the Admiralty in 1783 as part of William Pitt the Younger's government. Serving for five years, he faced debilitating budget constraints and complaints from unemployed officers. Despite these issues, he succeeded in maintaining the fleet in a state of readiness. With the beginning of Wars of the French Revolution in 1793, he received command of the Channel Fleet despite his advanced age. Putting to sea the following year, he won a decisive victory at the Glorious First of June, capturing six ships of the line and sinking a seventh.

After the campaign, Howe retired from active service but retained several commands at the wish of King George III. Beloved by the sailors of the Royal Navy, he was called upon to aid in putting down the 1797 Spithead mutinies. Understanding the demands and needs of the men, he was able to negotiate an acceptable solution which saw pardons issued for those who had mutinied, pay raises, and the transfer of unacceptable officers. Knighted in 1797, Howe lived another two years before dying on August 5, 1799. He was buried in the family vault at St. Andrew's Church, Langar-cum-Barnstone.

Richard Howe - History

The Sun’s Chris Scott reports that the Franco American School, which closed as a school this past June, will be sold to a partnership of the Coalition for a Better Acre and TMI Property Management & Development which plans to convert the school into 40 units of market and affordable housing. The developers plan to preserve two religious sites located at the rear of the property: A trail of 14 Stations of the Cross that was installed in 1912, and the Grotto, a cave-like structure that features a life-sized statue of Jesus on the cross. To the rear of the Grotto is the start of the Northern Canal. On the other side of the canal is the start of the Northern Canal Walkway which goes all the way to the Tsongas Arena.

Located alongside one of the earliest bridges across the Merrimack, the site of the Franco American School has always been an important place in this region. As the eighteenth century drew to a close, that parcel was owned by Phineas Whiting who maintained a house and a store on the premises. Whiting also owned a farm that extended almost to the Concord River, through what is now downtown Lowell. He and one of his neighbors, Josiah Fletcher, formed a partnership and purchased Thomas Hurd’s woolen mill which was located on the west bank of the Concord River, just upstream from the Pawtucket Canal (right where the Lower Locks Parking Garage is now located).

When Lowell received its town charter in 1826, Whiting’s home was still just one of a dozen structures along that stretch of Pawtucket Street. Most of the early growth of Lowell occurred closer to downtown and the newly constructed power canals.

In 1859, another Phineas Whiting, sold the Pawtucket Street parcel to Frederick Ayer for $9000. Ayer had come to Lowell just eight years earlier to assist his brother, James C. Ayer, in the latter’s patent medicine business. That business was extremely profitable, so the Ayer brothers went from poverty to riches in a very short time. By 1876, Frederick had replaced the old Whiting home with a three-story brick mansion, one of the most ornate buildings in Lowell at the time.

Frederick Ayer added to the size of his land holdings the following year (1860) by purchasing an adjoining parcel of 67,000 square feet that bordered the Merrimack River from the Proprietors of the Locks and Canals for $3300. Ayer added a final piece to his homestead in 1889, paying Harrison W. Streeter $12,000 for a 13,200 square foot strip of land along what is today known as Fanning Street, but was then called Beacon Street. (Also in 1889, there was a street behind the Ayer parcel, running alongside the river. It was called Falls Street).

In 1899, Frederick Ayer and his family moved to Boston and the Ayer Mansion in Lowell sat vacant until July 15, 1908, when Ayer conveyed the property for $1 to Joseph Campeau, Joseph Lefebvre, and Leon Lamothe, three Catholic priests at Lowell’s St. Jean Baptiste Parish. The property would be a home for orphaned children and would be operated by the Sisters of Charity of Quebec.

Stations of the Cross on grounds of Franco American School

In April 1909, members of Lowell’s French Canadian community organized a Massachusetts corporation called L’Orphelinat Franco-Americain and on April 30, 1909, the three priests conveyed the former Ayer Mansion to the corporation. In 1912, a four-story brick wing was added to the back of the home. In 1964, the corporation’s articles of organization were amended, changing the corporate name to Franco American School of Lowell Inc. The school continued to operate until his June when classes ended for the academic year.

5 Responses to Franco American School: Some history

What a shame that this is being converted to 40 units. Doesn’t Lowell ever save historical buildings? How are the Stations of the Cross and Grotto going to weather 40 units of people? Our courthouses will be sold soon. Will those also be sold to UMASS or converted to housing?Lowell’s future vision needs to be considered for some of these sales.

My older brother Frank remembers the orphanage well as he was sent there by my Mom who was pregnant with me at the time in the early 50’s. The story goes that he was too much to handle while Dad was building a new home for her in Centralville..they used to live in Chelmsford and at 7 years old, Francis liked to walk off to the nearby quarries. He only stayed with Les Bonne Soeurs for a few months, Mom took him back! In the end the Grey Nuns did him some good as he became a priest and made his Mom very proud.

the only home I knew I still call the nuns who are in Canada now

My mother and her two sisters and a brother were placed at the Franco American Orphanage at very young ages because their mother passed away because he had to work and not be home except on the weekend that is where they remained until they became of age to leave, one of my aunts never left she became a Grey Nun of the Cross and taught at the school for many years. The Grotto has been a special meaning to many in the city of Lowell, finding that place to pray and meditate. I often took my grandson Nicholas there to talk about Jesus and say prayers, at his young age he would say to me ” Memere can we go to the infirmary ” I was amazed that he used those words as a little boy he must of had the consciousness to know that there is healing at the cross of Jesus. The Grotto is truly a place where Jesus is honored, worshipped and glorified.

My mother and her sister were in the orphanage for a while when my grandmother was ill. General MacArthur’s mother was also born in the orphanage. Singer Bob Dylan visited the Grotto when he was in lowell. There are photo’s of him there on the site you know your from Lowell. I think the Historical society should have saved the building. What it going to be used for in my opinion will ruin it.shame.


Exploring connections between Lowell and Ireland by introducing Irish writers to American readers.

Richard Howe

Born in 1726, a London native, Richard Howe commanded the Royal Navy's North American Station during the American Revolutionary War. At the outset of the Revolution, Howe openly sympathized with the colonists’ cause. However, Richard, and his younger brother William, headed, respectively, Great Britain’s Navy and Army. The Howe brothers, determined to quash the rebellion and restore Anglo-American relations, set sail for the colonies in 1776.

Upon arriving at Staten Island, New York in July, Richard Howe was dispatched as a peace commissioner. Before fighting commenced, he met with Washington to consider negotiations. When reconciliation proved impossible, however, Howe began strategizing. The idea was to assemble a strong fleet and conquer major port cities along the eastern coast. By August, the Admiral accomplished the first leg of his plan nearly 400 ships docked in Staten Island harbor, forming the largest fleet in British naval history. When fighting inevitably broke out, the colonists were unable to defend their ground and were forced to retreat and surrender New York. Over the next two years, in addition to New York City, Howe managed to capture Long Island, Philadelphia, and New Jersey.

In 1778, France had entered the war on the colonists’ side and a French fleet, commanded by the Comte d’Estaing, sailed to New York where it came to blows with the British. Outnumbered, Howe achieved a stunning victory over the French. When reinforcements arrived in the form of Admiral John Byron, Howe headed back to England. In protestation of Lord North’s administration, Howe resigned from his post. The Admiral credited lack of Parliamentary support and unfair press coverage for his resignation. For the remainder of the war, Howe stayed in Europe, joining Parliament to oppose North and his war management. Although the Admiral would eventually return once more to the sea to fight against the French and Spanish, his participation in the American Revolution had ended. He died in 1799, at 73 years old.

The Howe Brothers in North America

Over the span of two major conflicts, no set of siblings played more of a role in American history than Great Britain’s Howe brothers. Through their own successes and failures, George, Richard, and William Howe helped shape the story of America’s formation during the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War.

George Howe in the French and Indian War George Howe (1725-1758) was described as "the best officer in the British Army" by James Wolfe.

Like many men who would serve as members of the British military’s high command, the Howe brothers’ family was extremely well connected. Their father, Emanuel Scrope, Second Viscount Howe, was a prominent member of parliament and served several years as the Royal Governor of Barbados before dying there of disease in 1735. George Augustus, the eldest son, and Third Viscount after his father’s death was born in 1725 and was destined for a quick rise in the British army. By age twenty, George was made an ensign in the 1 st Foot Guards and served as an aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland, witnessing firsthand the carnage of the Jacobite Rebellion and War of Austrian Succession.

When the Seven Years’ War erupted across the globe in 1756, George was commissioned colonel of the 60 th Regiment of Foot (Royal Americans), sent to the British colonies, and subsequently given command of the 55 th Regiment. Well-regarded by William Pitt and members of Parliament, he was promoted to brigadier general and accompanied Major General James Abercromby as his second-in-command for the campaign to capture Fort Carillon (Ticonderoga) from the French in 1758.

George quickly became a favorite of the colonial provincials participating in the expedition. He admired their irregular style of waging war and endeavored to learn all he could from them in the field, all the while eating without silver utensils, sleeping on the ground, and even washing his uniform as they did. In turn, the colonial troops revered him for his “robust Soldier-like Constitution, his bold, enterprising Spirit, and every other military accomplishment.” “His soldiers,” one peer observed, “love and fear him, and are willing to comply with his Commands, because he first sets them an Example.”

Brigadier General Howe was the most beloved British regular officer to serve in the colonies during the French and Indian War. He was brave, innovative, and most importantly, relatable to the men serving beneath him. Unfortunately, his time-fighting in America was brief. On July 6, 1758, while personally leading an advance force against French resistance near Bernetz Brook, several miles outside the walls of Carillon, Howe was struck in the breast by a musket ball and killed instantly. “In Lord Howe,” one British officer wrote, “the soul of General Abercromby’s army seemed to expire.”

The following year, the Massachusetts Assembly, in appreciation of the elder Howe brother, appropriated funds for a memorial to be erected in Westminster Abbey. His younger brothers, William and Richard, never forgot this act of kindness. It was now up to them to continue their family’s heroic story.

Richard and William Howe in North America during the Revolution

Like their older brother, Richard (1726-1799) and William (1729-1814) were destined for military service from a young age. The former joined the Royal Navy in 1740 and the latter the Army in 1746, both seeing service in The War of Austrian Succession and the French and Indian War. In June 1755, while captain of the Dunkirk, “Black Dick” (as Richard was known for because of his dark complexion) led a pursuit near Nova Scotia of straggling transports that were carrying French regulars to Canada and succeeded in capturing eight companies. The brief exchange of fire was the first naval action of what would become the Seven Years’ War the following year. Richard’s noble service continued into that conflict and over the decade that followed he witnessed a meteoric rise in rank, eventually being appointed the commander of Britain’s naval forces in North America in February 1776. Beside his brother, he would work to bring the colonists’ rebellion to an end.

Painting of Richard Howe titled "Lord Howe on the Deck of the 'Queen Charlotte', 1 June 1794" by Mather Brown.

William, too, saw his share of fighting in the French and Indian War, commanding the 58 th Regiment of Foot during the siege of Louisbourg in 1758, catching the eye of then Brigadier General James Wolfe. The next year, Howe led light infantry under Wolfe at Quebec and served gallantly under Jeffry Amherst as well near Montreal.

Following the end of hostilities, while holding various posts and being continuously promoted, Howe served as a Member of Parliament from Nottingham. As tensions between Britain and her American colonies grew, both Howes urged the government to show restraint and avoid an armed confrontation with their kinsmen across the pond. These efforts would obviously fail as Massachusetts, the tinder box, set history aflame in April 1775 at Lexington and Concord. The following month, Major General William Howe, along with fellow major generals John Burgoyne and Henry Clinton, landed in Boston to help quell the rabble-rousers. Though still reluctant to take up arms against any of the colonists, he knew his duty to king and country outweighed those feelings. Maybe peace without any more bloodshed would still be possible.

General Howe’s Revolutionary War experience truly began during the afternoon of June 17, 1775. That single day would do more to shape his operational and tactical approach to waging war against the Americans than any other day of the conflict. Ordered by General Thomas Gage, William led a force of 2,600 men against the rebel defenses situated along the Charlestown Peninsula, most notably atop Breed’s Hill. Three successive assault waves advanced against the American lines as the red-coated bodies piled up in front. Howe personally led the movements against the enemy center, and finally, His Majesty’s forces were successful, driving the Americans across Charlestown Neck. Howe was victorious, but at the cost of over 1,000 of the king’s men. From that day on, to Howe, the massive frontal assault against strong enemy defenses was out of the question. Costly victories like Bunker Hill would not be sustainable.

William Howe’s tenure as commander of the British army in America (he assumed this position in September 1775) can best be summarized as one of immense tactical and operational success, but an overall strategic failure. Though has land forces had beaten the Continental Army again and again in New York and Pennsylvania, he always failed to deliver the crushing blow that would prevent the Americans from fighting another day. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: Howe was incapable of recognizing that the rebels’ true center of gravity—what physically or morally kept the revolution going—was the Continental Army and not the major American cities.

Evacuating Boston in March 1776, Britain’s attention immediately turned to the capture of New York City, which he believed to be the commercial and financial center of the colonies. Sailing from Halifax, Howe arrived offshore of New York City in late June, and his brother, Richard, was united with him the following month. By mid-August, the Howes had amassed the largest British operational force every mustered in the hemisphere—over 30,000 men and thirty warships armed with 1,200 guns and 10,000 seamen. By November, George Washington’s American army had been ousted from New York and was in full retreat, though still intact, across New Jersey.

General Howe’s forces had dealt some heavy blows to the Americans, but he failed to follow-up the tactical successes with any decisive action. Washington was able to escape and retain his army so the fight may be carried on. New York City was now in British hands, but the war was far from over. Rather than pursuing the enemy and pinning him against the Delaware River, Howe’s forces went into winter quarters, believing that the American army and the revolution would simply collapse on its own in the coming months. This was not the case.

A 1777 color mezzotint of British General William Howe.

The following year, 1777, the Howes shifted their focus toward carrying the war to the doorstep of Philadelphia—the political heart of the revolution—in an attempt to capture yet another major city. Admiral Howe’s ships carried his brother's land forces by water into Maryland, and a repeat of the previous year’s campaign commenced. The British bloodied Washington’s men at Brandywine and Germantown, and Philadelphia fell to Howe, but nothing changed. The Continental Congress fled elsewhere to continue their business, and so did the Continental Army, both still very much alive.

Although the Howes had failed to end the war on the battlefield and at sea, there was always a hope that they could bring peace through words, and not bloodshed—they still did not want to fight those who they believed were their countrymen. On multiple occasions, especially while in New York, the brothers opened negotiations for reconciliation, but they all failed.

The biggest blow to these peace efforts came at the Billopp House in Staten Island on September 11, 1776. There, Richard Howe personally met with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Edward Rutledge. In regard to reconciliation with the Crown, Franklin admonished Howe, “We cannot now expect happiness under the domination of Great Britain. All former attachments have been obliterated.” Too much blood had been spilled by that point and the following year for any hope of peace.

By May 1778, with the war far from won, General Howe resigned from his post and sailed for England with his reputation in ruins. Richard remained, and successfully helped evacuate Philadelphia in June 1778, and even scored a victory against a combined Franco-American force in Rhode Island later that year, but afterward returned home as well. He and his brother had been sent to subdue a rebellion instead, they gave it new life. Wanting peace, which they could not obtain, they needed to utilize the Crown’s military might to pummel the enemy forces into submission. They could not accomplish that either. The people, not commercial and political centers, are what kept the revolution alive.

The story of the Howe brothers in America is triumphant and tragic, and a bit ironic. During the French and Indian War they fought to secure the colonies for the king, and during the Revolution, they lost them for him.

Wars are more often lost than won, but in 1775 a man who predicted British defeat in the Revolution would have been taken for a fool. The mightiest, richest empire since Rome, Great Britain ruled the seas unchallenged there seemed no limit to the power and resources that could be brought to bear against the uprising across the Atlantic. Yet after seven years of fighting, England withdrew from the contest, yielded up its sovereignty over thirteen American provinces, and left its lonely monarch to contemplate the wreckage of his hopes. “I shall never rest my head on my last pillow in peace and quiet as long as I remember the loss of my American colonies,” George in grieved years after the event.

Although Yorktown came to symbolize the king’s loss, many Englishmen felt that the final disaster had been foreshadowed by the first three years of war—the period between Lexington and Saratoga—and that the responsibility for defeat lay with the two commanders in charge of Britain’s army and navy during most of that crucial time.

Much has been made of the fact that these two were brothers—General William Howe and Admiral Richard Howe—that both had expressed opposition to the king’s policies toward the colonies, that neither had much stomach for subduing a people of the same flesh and blood and heritage. Indeed, it was suggested then and later that the Howes were guilt)1 of disloyalty (or worse) to the Crown, that their true sympathies lay with the Americans. But this is to forget that the brothers, whatever their faults, were toiling like Sisyphus in a murky area in which the political and military objectives of a nation at war, seemingly clear and complementary, more often proved to be confused, divided, and antithetical.

There had been another brother—George Augustus, third Viscount Howe, eldest of the three—who was one of the most popular men in the colonies when he was killed in Gen. James Abercromby’s fatal attack on Fort Ticonderoga in 1758. So well was he loved by New Englanders who served with him that they placed a monument to him in Westminster Abbey. To authorities in London this suggested that a general and an admiral of the same name would profit from that residue of affection, and when the Howes were appointed to supreme command of the army and navy, they were assigned a curious double role. On the one hand they were to wage war but at the same time they were to negotiate a peace. Coming as conquerors, they would also appear as men of good will—warriors one day, peacemakers the next.

Quite apart from the brothers’ limited diplomatic talents, the ambivalence of their mission would have taxed the capacities of far wiser and abler men. There is no need to dwell on their failure to achieve either objective the point is simply that they were expected to perform an almost impossible task, and the trouble lay not only in their faulty execution but in the government’s expectation that they could succeed in making war and peace simultaneously. It was an attitude expressed by the prime minister, Lord North, who would defend his program by remarking, “We are prepared to punish, but we are nevertheless ready to forgive.” It was implicit in the words of the king, writing to General Howe after his victory on Long Island and advising him not to be boastful: “Notes of triumph,” George observed, “would not [be] proper when the successes are against subjects, not a foreign foe.” Against subjects, in other words, the Howes’ war must not be too harsh—no scorched-earth policy lest such measures jeopardize the possibility of reunion with the colonists.

The result was that the Howes—particularly William, on whose army the burden of fighting would fall—must fight a limited war. This had a profound effect on the mind of a general whose supply lines stretched across the Atlantic, whose troops and the vast quantities of supplies they needed must be transported over three thousand miles of water. While recognizing that his goal was the defeat of the rebel army, Howe concluded that this had to be achieved “under circumstances the least hazardous to the royal army.” Even a victory, if obtained at the cost of heavy British losses, might prove too much, might prove “a fatal check to the progress of the war,” so Howe, intent on preserving his men, took no unnecessary risks.

In any case he lacked the killer instinct as a commander he was a man of fits and starts, more often than not afflicted with what Abraham Lincoln, speaking of George McClellan, called “the slows.” He was also inordinately fond of his comforts and pleasures. The rebel general Charles Lee, as a British prisoner, saw a good deal of Howe and concluded that he was “the most indolent of mortals.” As a battlefield leader, Lee admitted, he was “all fire and activity, brave and cool as Julius Caesar” (as indeed Howe had proved at Bunker Hill, where one American defender caught sight of him through the smoke of battle standing alone, entirely surrounded by dead and wounded men of his command). But as commanding general of His Majesty’s army in America, Lee said, Howe merely “shut his eyes, fought his battles, drank his bottle, had his little whore, advised with his counsellors, received his orders … shut his eyes, [and] fought again.”

William Howe was a tall, heavy, coarse-looking man with poor teeth and a complexion almost as swarthy as that of his brother Richard, who was known as Black Dick. Another characteristic the two shared was taciturnity: as Horace Walpole remarked, the general “was one of those brave, silent brothers, and was reckoned sensible, though so silent that nobody knew whether he was or not.” And a soldier who knew them said they had in common “the sullen family gloom. In one thing they differed, Sir William hated business and never did any.” Which was what a British wag had in mind when he wrote

Awake, arouse, Sir Billy ,
There’s forage in the plain.
Leave your little filly,
And open the campaign.

Brother Richard differed from William only in degree: he was older by three years, more inarticulate, and somewhat more effective—but only somewhat (he too was accused of “unaccountable inactivity"). Where William fussed about the lack of support he felt he received from England, to Richard every communication with London was a galling reminder of the two men through whom he must conduct official business. One was Lord Sandwich, first lord of the admiralty, whom he despised the other was I/3rd George Germain, secretary of state for the colonies, whom Howe disliked so cordially that he had refused to speak to him since 1758.

Quite apart from his personal misgivings about the war, the type of service he to’ind himself engaged in must have been frustrating to a man who had served in the navy since the age of fourteen, earning a reputation as a brave and skillful officer. There was no enemy fleet to fight—only the occasional privateer and most of the admiral’s American tour was devoted to ferrying troops hither and yon and acting in support of the army. Perhaps because his brother was so preoccupied, it fell to Richard Howe to negotiate some sort of settlement with the rebels, and while he approached the business conscientiously enough, to his chagrin nothing came of it. The first effort was made in July of i 776, shortly after a huge British armada landed on Staten Island, when Lord Howe sent a message to George Washington requesting a meeting. The affair got off’ to a bad start because the letter was addressed to “George Washington, Esq."—not to General Washington the American commander refused to receive it, and a comic opera of sorts ensued, with each party trying to maintain face, until a meeting between Washington and Howe’s representative was finally arranged. It became quickly apparent during the discussion that Howe, although he was called a peace commissioner, had no authority to do much beyond granting pardons to rebels. Since the latter believed that they were only defending what they construed as their natural rights, they did not think pardons were in order, and Howe’s initial overture got nowhere.

After the Battle of Long Island he tried again. This time he managed to meet with a delegation of the Continental Congress that included Benjamin Franklin, who had been a friend of the admiral’s sister in London, but once more it was clear that Howe lacked substantive authority. He could talk with the rebels, he could listen to their grievances, and he could grant pardons, but anything else would have to be referred to London.

Despite these failures Howe continued to hope that an amicable settlement of differences might be achieved, but reading daily summaries of the press, which his critics have maintained are partisan and distorted. He has made no secret of his disdain for the press and has met with newsmen less than any recent President.

On that, Franklin Roosevelt was the champion. In a little over twelve years he held 998 press conferences, for a time averaging two a week. He gathered perhaps a dozen reporters at a time in his office, and he answered questions for periods of up to two hours. Truman averaged a conference a week. Eisenhower, who allowed his conferences to be filmed and shown on television after they had been edited, logged a hundred conferences in his first term but, because of illness, less than half that number in his second. Kennedy, whose conferences were presented live on television and averaged a half hour in length, managed sixtyfour in nearly three years, roughly one every fifteen days. President Nixon, through December, 1973, had held twenty-six (roughly one every two months on average, though he had gone as long as five months without one).

Such are some of the statistics that measure the accessibility of one of the three most powerful rulers on earth, a subject scarcely even brought up in Moscow or Peking. Whether indeed accessibility is a help or a hindrance in getting things done at the modern White House may be argued, but it remains the basis of the American social contract entered into nearly two centuries ago.


William Strauss and Neil Howe's partnership began in the late 1980s when they began writing their first book Generations, which discusses the history of the United States as a succession of generational biographies. Each had written on generational topics: Strauss on Baby Boomers and the Vietnam War draft, and Howe on the G.I. Generation and federal entitlement programs. [18] Strauss co-wrote two books with Lawrence Baskir about how the Vietnam War affected the Baby Boomers (Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War and the Vietnam Generation (1978) and Reconciliation after Vietnam (1977)). Neil Howe studied what he believed to be the US's entitlement attitude of the 1980s and co-authored On Borrowed Time: How the Growth in Entitlement Spending Threatens America's Future in 1988 with Peter George Peterson. [19] The authors' interest in generations as a broader topic emerged after they met in Washington, D.C., and began discussing the connections between each of their previous works. [20]

They wondered why Boomers and G.I.s had developed such different ways of looking at the world, and what it was about these generations’ experiences growing up that prompted their different outlooks. They also wondered whether any previous generations had acted along similar lines, and their research discussed historical analogues to the current generations. They ultimately described a recurring pattern in Anglo-American history of four generational types, each with a distinct collective persona, and a corresponding cycle of four different types of era, each with a distinct mood. The groundwork for this theory was laid out in Generations in 1991. Strauss and Howe expanded on their theory and updated the terminology in The Fourth Turning in 1997. [18] [21] Generations helped popularize the idea that people in a particular age group tend to share a distinct set of beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors because they all grow up and come of age during a particular period in history. [8]

In Generations (1991) and The Fourth Turning (1997), they discussed the generation gap between Baby Boomers and their parents and predicted there would be no such gap between Millennials and their elders. In 2000, they published Millennials Rising. A 2000 New York Times book review for this book titled: What's the Matter With Kids Today? Not a Thing, described the message of Millennials Rising as “we boomers are raising a cohort of kids who are smarter, more industrious and better behaved than any generation before”, saying the book complimented the Baby Boomer cohort by complimenting their parenting skills. [22] [23] [24]

In the mid-1990s, the authors began receiving inquiries about how their research could be applied to strategic problems in organizations. They established themselves as pioneers in a growing field, and started speaking frequently about their work at events and conferences. [8] In 1999, they founded LifeCourse Associates, a publishing, speaking and consulting company built on their generational theory. As LifeCourse partners, they have offered keynote speeches, consulting services, and customized communications to corporate, nonprofit, government, and education clients. They have also written six books in which they assert that the Millennial Generation is transforming various sectors, including schools, colleges, entertainment, and the workplace. [ promotional language ]

On December 18, 2007, William Strauss died at the age of 60 from pancreatic cancer. [25] Neil Howe continues to expand LifeCourse Associates and to write books and articles on a variety of generational topics. Each year Mr. Howe gives about 60 speeches, often followed by customized workshops, at colleges, elementary schools, and corporations. [8] Neil Howe is a public policy adviser to the Blackstone Group, senior adviser to the Concord Coalition, and senior associate to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. [26]

Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker, Bannon discussed the details of Strauss–Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero “focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one”. Kaiser said Bannon is "very familiar with Strauss and Howe’s theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." [27] [28] [29] A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: "Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome", commented: "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." [30]

Strauss and Howe's theory provided historical information regarding living and past generations and made various predictions. Many of their predictions were regarding the Millennial Generation, who were young children when they began their work, thus lacking significant historical data. In their first book Generations (1991), Strauss and Howe describe the history of the US as a succession of Anglo-American generational biographies from 1584 to the present, and they describe a theorized recurring generational cycle in American history. The authors posit a pattern of four repeating phases, generational types and a recurring cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises, from the founding colonials of America through the present day. [1] [31]

Strauss and Howe followed in 1993 with their second book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, which was published while Gen Xers were young adults. The book examines the generation born between 1961 and 1981, "Gen-Xers" (which they called "13ers", describing them as the thirteenth generation since the US became a nation). The book asserts that 13ers' location in history as under-protected children during the Consciousness Revolution explains their pragmatic attitude. They describe Gen Xers as growing up during a time when society was less focused on children and more focused on adults and their self-actualization. [32] [33] [31]

In 1997, the authors published The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, which expanded on the ideas presented in Generations and extended their cycles back into the early 15th century. The authors began the use of more colorful names for generational archetypes - e.g. "Civics" became "Heroes" (which they applied to the Millennial Generation), "Adaptives" became "Artists" - and of the terms "Turning" and "Saeculum" for the generational cycles. The title is a reference to what their first book called a Crisis period, which they expected to recur soon after the turn of the millennium. [2]

In 2000, the two authors published Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. This work discussed the personality of the Millennial Generation, whose oldest members were described as the high school graduating class of the year 2000. In this 2000 book, Strauss and Howe asserted that Millennial teens and young adults were recasting the image of youth from "downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged". They credited increased parental attention and protection for these positive changes. They asserted Millennials are held to higher standards than adults apply to themselves and that they are a lot less vulgar and violent than the teen culture older people produce for them. They described them as less sexually charged and as ushering in a new sexual modesty, with an increasing belief that sex should be saved for marriage and a return to conservative family values. They predicted that over the following decade, Millennials would transform what it means to be young. According to the authors, Millennials could emerge as the next "Great Generation". The book was described as an optimistic, feel-good book for the parents of the Millennial Generation, predominantly the Baby Boomers. [22] [34] [35]

Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old age. Generations are identified (from first birthyear to last) by looking for cohort groups of this length that share three criteria. First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. In this view, members of a generation are shaped in lasting ways by the eras they encounter as children and young adults and they share certain common beliefs and behaviors. Aware of the experiences and traits that they share with their peers, members of a generation would also share a sense of common perceived membership in that generation. [36]

They based their definition of a generation on the work of various writers and social thinkers, from ancient writers such as Polybius and Ibn Khaldun to modern social theorists such as José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, John Stuart Mill, Émile Littré, Auguste Comte, and François Mentré. [37]

Turnings Edit

While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe described a theorized pattern in the historical generations they examined, which they say revolved around generational events which they call turnings. In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, they describe a four-stage cycle of social or mood eras which they call "turnings". The turnings include: "The High", "The Awakening", "The Unraveling" and "The Crisis". [31]

High Edit

According to Strauss and Howe, the First Turning is a High, which occurs after a Crisis. During The High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity. [38]

According to the authors, the most recent First Turning in the US was the post–World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. [39]

Awakening Edit

According to the theory, the Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of "self-awareness", "spirituality" and "personal authenticity". Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty. [40]

Strauss & Howe say the US's most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid-1960s to the tax revolts of the early 1980s. [41]

Unraveling Edit

According to Strauss and Howe, the Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era they say is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. The authors say Highs come after Crises, when society wants to coalesce and build and avoid the death and destruction of the previous crisis. Unravelings come after Awakenings, when society wants to atomize and enjoy. [42] They say the most recent Unraveling in the US began in the 1980s and includes the Long Boom and Culture War. [31]

Crisis Edit

According to the authors, the Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era of destruction, often involving war or revolution, in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation's survival. After the crisis, civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects towards community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group. [43]

The authors say the previous Fourth Turning in the US began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (which they call a Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. They say their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of that era. [44] The authors assert the Millennial Generation (which they also describe as a Hero archetype, born 1982 to 2004) show many similar traits to those of the G.I. youth, which they describe as including: rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence. [45]

Cycle Edit

The authors describe each turning as lasting about 20–22 years. Four turnings make up a full cycle of about 80 to 90 years, [46] which the authors term a saeculum, after the Latin word meaning both "a long human life" and "a natural century". [47]

Generational change drives the cycle of turnings and determines its periodicity. As each generation ages into the next life phase (and a new social role) society's mood and behavior fundamentally changes, giving rise to a new turning. Therefore, a symbiotic relationship exists between historical events and generational personas. Historical events shape generations in childhood and young adulthood then, as parents and leaders in midlife and old age, generations in turn shape history. [48]

Each of the four turnings has a distinct mood that recurs every saeculum. Strauss and Howe describe these turnings as the "seasons of history". At one extreme is the Awakening, which is analogous to summer, and at the other extreme is the Crisis, which is analogous to winter. The turnings in between are transitional seasons, the High and the Unraveling are similar to spring and autumn, respectively. [49] Strauss and Howe have discussed 26 theorized turnings over 7 saecula in Anglo-American history, from the year 1435 through today.

At the heart of Strauss & Howe's ideas is a basic alternation between two different types of eras, Crises and Awakenings. Both of these are defining eras in which people observe that historic events are radically altering their social environment. [50] Crises are periods marked by major secular upheaval, when society focuses on reorganizing the outer world of institutions and public behavior (they say the last American Crisis was the period spanning the Great Depression and World War II). Awakenings are periods marked by cultural or religious renewal, when society focuses on changing the inner world of values and private behavior (the last American Awakening was the "Consciousness Revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s). [51]

During Crises, great peril provokes a societal consensus, an ethic of personal sacrifice, and strong institutional order. During Awakenings, an ethic of individualism emerges, and the institutional order is attacked by new social ideals and spiritual agendas. [52] According to the authors, about every eighty to ninety years—the length of a long human life—a national Crisis occurs in American society. Roughly halfway to the next Crisis, a cultural Awakening occurs (historically, these have often been called Great Awakenings). [51]

In describing this cycle of Crises and Awakenings, they draw from the work of other historians and social scientists who have also discussed long cycles in American and European history. The cycle of Crises corresponds with long cycles of war identified by such scholars as Arnold J. Toynbee, Quincy Wright, and L. L. Ferrar Jr., and with geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson and George Modelski. [53] Strauss and Howe say their cycle of Awakenings corresponds with Anthony Wallace's work on revitalization movements [54] they also say recurring Crises and Awakenings correspond with two-stroke cycles in politics (Walter Dean Burnham, Arthur Schlesinger Sr. and Jr.), foreign affairs (Frank L. Klingberg), and the economy (Nikolai Kondratieff) as well as with long-term oscillations in crime and substance abuse. [55]

Archetypes Edit

The authors say two different types of eras and two formative age locations associated with them (childhood and young adulthood) produce four generational archetypes that repeat sequentially, in rhythm with the cycle of Crises and Awakenings. In Generations, they refer to these four archetypes as Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive. [56] In The Fourth Turning (1997) they change this terminology to Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist. [57] They say the generations in each archetype not only share a similar age-location in history, they also share some basic attitudes towards family, risk, culture and values, and civic engagement. In essence, generations shaped by similar early-life experiences develop similar collective personas and follow similar life-trajectories. [58] To date, Strauss and Howe have described 25 generations in Anglo-American history, each with a corresponding archetype. The authors describe the archetypes as follows:

Prophet Edit

Prophet (Idealist) generations enter childhood during a High, a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-Crisis era, come of age as self-absorbed young crusaders of an Awakening, focus on morals and principles in midlife, and emerge as elders guiding another Crisis. [59] Examples: Transcendental Generation, Missionary Generation, Baby Boomers.

Nomad Edit

Nomad (Reactive) generations enter childhood during an Awakening, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas, when young adults are passionately attacking the established institutional order. Nomads grow up as under-protected children during this Awakening, come of age as alienated, post-Awakening young adults, become pragmatic midlife leaders during a Crisis, and age into resilient post-Crisis elders. [59] Examples: Gilded Generation, Lost Generation, Generation X

Hero Edit

Hero (Civic) generations enter childhood during an Unraveling, a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez-faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening. [59] Examples: Republican Generation, G.I. Generation, Millennials

Artist Edit

Artist (Adaptive) generations enter childhood during a Crisis, a time when great dangers cut down social and political complexity in favor of public consensus, aggressive institutions, and an ethic of personal sacrifice. Artists grow up overprotected by adults preoccupied with the Crisis, come of age as the socialized and conformist young adults of a post-Crisis world, break out as process-oriented midlife leaders during an Awakening, and age into thoughtful post-Awakening elders. [59] Examples: Progressive Generation, Silent Generation, Zoomer Generation

Summary Edit

  • High → Awakening → Unraveling → Crisis
  • Dominant: independent behavior + attitudes in defining an era
  • Recessive: dependent role in defining an era
  • Prophet (Idealist): Awakening as young adults. Awakening, defined: Institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy
  • Hero (Civic): Crisis as young adults. Crisis, defined: Institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation's survival
  • Nomad (Reactive): Unraveling as young adults. Unraveling, defined: Institutions are weak and distrusted, individualism is strong and flourishing
  • Artist (Adaptive): High [when they become] young adults. High, defined: Institutions are strong and individualism is weak

Late Medieval Saeculum Edit

Arthurian Generation Edit

The Arthurian Generation was born between 1433 and 1460 and is of the hero archetype. Members of the generation grew up during England's retreat from France, during an era of rising civil unrest. [60]

Humanist Generation Edit

The Humanist Generation was born between 1461 and 1482 and is of the artist/adaptive archetype.

This generation came of age at the height of the Middle Ages, just prior to the Reformation and Renaissance. For the educated classes life was fairly static, with Renaissance Humanist teaching and a clear career path through the church or State bureaucracy becoming increasingly available for the educated middle classes. Humanist influences took hold across Europe, and in many ways prepared the intellectual landscape for the coming reformation. Their youth coincided with the development of the European Printing press allowing a greater dissemination of knowledge. [61]

According to Strauss and Howe, those who constituted this generation had a sheltered childhood during a bloody civil war and were educated abroad, becoming Greek language tutors, international scholars, poets, prelates, and literate merchants and yeomen. [62] The education produced by the humanist generation has been described as focused on the qualitative and the subjective, rather than the quantitative and the objective. [63]

Some of the notable persons who influenced this generation include Thomas More, Erasmus, Thomas Linacre, John Colet, Cardinal Wolsey, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Francisco Pizarro and Cesare Borgia. King Edward V was also born into this generation, but as he died at only 15 years old, it is difficult to properly place him in this archetype. However, according to the historian Dominic Mancini Edward was very fascinated with science and philosophy, and was very well learned beyond his years. [64]

Reformation Saeculum Edit

Reformation Generation Edit

The Reformation Generation generation was born between 1483 and 1511 and is of the prophet archetype. This generation rebelled as youths, prompting the first colleges in the 1520s. [65]

Reprisal Generation Edit

The Reprisal Generation was born between 1512 and 1540 and is of the nomad/reactive archetype. They spent their childhood amid religious frenzy and a widespread erosion of social authority—and came of age in a cynical, post-Awakening era of cut-throat politics and roller-coaster markets. [66] They crewed the ships during the wars of the Spanish Armada and saw the expansion of British territories and colonisation in the New World overseas. [67] [68]

Elizabethan Generation Edit

The Elizabethan Generation was born between 1541 and 1565 and is of the hero archetype. They benefited as children from an explosive growth in academies intended to transform them into perfect people of civic achievement and teamwork. They came to age during the Anglo-Spanish War (1585-1604). They regulated commerce, explored overseas empires, built English country houses, pursued science, and wrote poetry that celebrated an orderly universe. [69]

Parliamentary Generation Edit

The Parliamentary Generation was born from 1566 and 1587 and are of the artist archetype. Their childhoods took place during an era of foreign threats and war. They built impeccable credentials in law, scholarship, religion, and arts and crafts guilds. [70]

New World Saeculum Edit

Puritan Generation Edit

The Puritan Generation was born from 1588 and 1617 and is of the prophet archetype. Members of the generation were led through the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651) by King Charles I and others led a large migration to the United States. The generation was very religious. [71]

Cavalier Generation Edit

The Cavalier Generation was born from 1618 to 1647 and were of the nomad archetype. Members of this generation grew up in an era of religious upheaval and family collapse. Their generation was notoriously violent and uneducated, causing men to take great risks, resulting in many young deaths. [72]

Glorious Generation Edit

The Glorious Generation was born from 1648 to 1673 and were of the hero archetype. They had a protected childhood with tax-supported schools and new laws discouraging the kidnapping of young servants. After proving their worth in the Indian Wars and triumphing in the Glorious Revolution, they were rewarded with electoral office at a young age. As young adults, they took pride in the growing political, commercial, and scientific achievements of England. They designed insurance, paper money, and public works. [73]

Enlightenment Generation Edit

The Enlightenment Generation' was born between 1674 and 1700 and were of the artist archetype. They grew up as protected children when families were close, youth risk discouraged, and good educations and well-connected marriages highly prized. As adults they provided America's first large cadre of credentialed professionals, political managers, and plantation administrators. [74]

Revolutionary Saeculum Edit

Awakening Generation Edit

The Awakening Generation was born between 1701 and 1723 and was of the prophet archetype. They were the first colonial generation to consist mostly of the offspring of native-born parents. As adults they attacked their elders' moral complacency in a spiritual firestorm. [75]

Liberty Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define The Liberty Generation (nomad archetype) as those born between 1724 and 1741. George Washington and Patrick Henry were born during this period. Also born in this era were 35 out of the 56 signatories of the United States Declaration of Independence, including John Adams.

Republican Generation Edit

The Republican Generation (hero archetype) was born between 1742 and 1766. This generation is known for participating in several global revolutionary movements during the Age of Revolution. This generation witnessed political turmoil in response to growing British imperialism, and the vast social inequalities exacerbated by ruthless competition between European Monarchists.

They came of age during British imperialism and during a time when the viability of mercantilism was being questioned. Relying on Enlightenment philosophy, they unleashed violent episodes of revolution, vilified Monarchy, and promoted Republicanism. In colonial America, they participated in the American Revolutionary War, secured Independence from British rule, and established a libertarian system of governance, based on constitutional republicanism and representative democracy. Notable persons affiliated with this generation include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Maximilien Robespierre, and Camille Desmoulins.

Compromise Generation Edit

The Compromise Generation was born between 1767 and 1791 and were of the artist archetype. They "rocked in the cradle of the Revolution" as they watched brave adults struggle and triumph. [76]

Civil War Saeculum Edit

Transcendental Generation Edit

The Transcendental Generation was born between 1792 and 1821 and were of the prophet archetype. They started the Second Great Awakening across the United States. [77]

Gilded Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define the Gilded Generation (nomad archetype) as those born from 1822 to 1842. They came of age amid rising national tempers, torrential immigration, rampant commercialism, conspicuous consumerism, declining college enrollment and economic disputes. This led to a distrust of zealotry and institutional involvement, shifting focus to a life of materialism. [ citation needed ] . Most American Civil War soldiers were born during this period (average age was 26).

Progressive Generation Edit

The Progressive Generation (hero and artist archetypes) was born from 1843 to 1859 and grew up during the American Civil War.

Great Power Saeculum Edit

Missionary Generation Edit

The Missionary Generation was born from 1860 to 1882 and is of the prophet/idealist archetype. Members of the Missionary Generation have been described as the "home-and-hearth children of the post-Civil War era". They were an idealist generation and as young adults, their leaders were famous preachers. Some were graduates of newly formed black and women's colleges. Their defining characteristics were missionary and social crusades: "Muckraker" journalism, prohibitionism, workers' rights, trade unionism and women's suffrage. [78] In midlife, they developed Prohibition in the United States, immigration control, and organized vice squads.

Because the Lost Generation were so decimated by World War I, the leadership of the Missionary Generation lasted longer than previous generations and in the 1930s and 1940s, their elite became the "Wise Old Men" who enacted a "New Deal", Social Security, led the global war against fascism, and reaffirmed America's highest ideals during a transformative era in world history. This generation is fully ancestral, with the last known member of the Missionary Generation, the American Sarah Knauss, having died on December 30, 1999 at 119 years of age. Sociologist Naomi Schaefer Riley believes that a new "Missionary Generation" is forming in the children of the 2010s. [79]

Lost Generation Edit

The Lost Generation (nomad archetype) is the generation that came of age during World War I. "Lost" in this context also means "disoriented, wandering, directionless"—a recognition that there was great confusion and aimlessness among the war's survivors in the early post-war years. Strauss and Howe define the cohort as individuals born between 1883 and 1900.

G.I. Generation Edit

The Greatest Generation (hero archetype), also known as the G.I. Generation and the World War II generation, is the demographic cohort following the Lost Generation and preceding the Silent Generation. Strauss and Howe define the cohort as individuals born between 1901 and 1924. They were shaped by the Great Depression and were the primary participants in World War II.

Silent Generation Edit

The Silent Generation (artist archetype) is the demographic cohort following the Greatest Generation and preceding the baby boomers. Strauss and Howe define the cohort as individuals born between 1925 and 1942.

Millennial Saeculum Edit

Baby Boom Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define the Baby Boom Generation as those born from 1943 to 1960.

13th Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define the 13th Generation as those born from 1961 to 1981.

Millennial Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define the Millennial Generation as those born from 1982 to 2004.

Homeland Generation Edit

Strauss and Howe define the Homeland Generation as those born from 2005 to present. The exact dates for this generation may be affected by current and future historical events.

The authors argue that the basic length of both generations and turnings—about twenty years—derives from longstanding socially and biologically determined phases of life. [ who? ] This is the reason it has remained relatively constant over centuries. [80] Some have argued that rapid increases in technology in recent decades are shortening the length of a generation. [81] According to Strauss and Howe, however, this is not the case. As long as the transition to adulthood occurs around age 20, the transition to midlife around age 40, and the transition to old age around age 60, they say the basic length of both generations and turnings will remain the same. [80]

In their book, The Fourth Turning, however, Strauss and Howe say that the precise boundaries of generations and turnings are erratic. The generational rhythm is not like certain simple, inorganic cycles in physics or astronomy, where time and periodicity can be predicted to the second. Instead, it resembles the complex, organic cycles of biology, where basic intervals endure but precise timing is difficult to predict. Strauss and Howe compare the saecular rhythm to the four seasons, which they say similarly occur in the same order, but with slightly varying timing. Just as winter may come sooner or later, and be more or less severe in any given year, the same is true of a Fourth Turning in any given saeculum. [82]

Generation Archetype Generation Birth Year Span Entered childhood in a Turning Year Span
Late Medieval Saeculum
Arthurian Generation Hero (Civic) 1433–1460 (28) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Retreat from France 1435–1459 (24) [a]
Humanist Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1461–1482 (22) 4th Turning: Crisis: War of the Roses 1459–1497 (38)
Reformation Saeculum (97 years)
Reformation Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1483–1511 (28) 1st Turning: High: Tudor Renaissance 1497–1517 (20)
Reprisal Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1512–1540 (29) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Protestant Reformation 1517–1542 (25)
Elizabethan Generation Hero (Civic) 1541–1565 (24) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Reaction & Marian Restoration 1542–1569 (27)
Parliamentary Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1566–1587 (22) 4th Turning: Crisis: Armada Crisis 1569–1594 (25)
New World Saeculum (110 years)
Puritan Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1588–1617 (30) 1st Turning: High: Merrie England 1594–1621 (27)
Cavalier Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1618–1647 (30) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Puritan Awakening 1621–1649 (26)
Glorious Generation Hero (Civic) 1648–1673 (26) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Restoration 1649–1675 (26)
Enlightenment Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1674–1700 (27) 4th Turning: Crisis: Glorious Revolution 1675–1704 (29)
Revolutionary Saeculum (90 years)
Awakening Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1701–1723 (23) 1st Turning: High: Augustan Age of Empire 1704–1727 (23)
Liberty Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1724–1741 (18) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Great Awakening 1727–1746 (19)
Republican Generation Hero (Civic) 1742–1766 (25) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Seven Years' War (French and Indian War) 1746–1773 (27)
Compromise Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1767–1791 (23) 4th Turning: Crisis: Age of Revolution 1773–1794 (21)
Civil War Saeculum (71 years)
Transcendental Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1792–1821 (28) 1st Turning: High: Era of Good Feelings 1794–1822 (28)
Gilded Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1822–1842 (21) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Transcendental Awakening 1822–1844 (22)
Progressive Generation [b] Hero (Civic) 1842–1843 (1) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Mexican–American War, Sectionalism 1844–1860 (16)
Artist (Adaptive) 1843–1859 (17) 4th Turning: Crisis: Civil War 1860–1865 (5)
Great Power Saeculum (81 years)
Missionary Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1860–1882 (23) 1st Turning: High: Reconstruction, Gilded Age 1865–1886 (21)
Lost Generation Nomad (Reactive) 1883–1900 (18) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Missionary Awakening/Progressive Era 1886–1908 (22)
G.I. Generation Hero (Civic) 1901–1924 (24) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: World War I, Roaring Twenties, Prohibition 1908–1929 (21)
Silent Generation Artist (Adaptive) 1925–1942 (18) 4th Turning: Crisis: Great Depression, World War II 1929–1946 (17)
Millennial Saeculum ( 75 + years)
Baby Boom Generation Prophet (Idealist) 1943–1960 (18) [83] 1st Turning: High: American High 1946–1964 (18)
13th Generation (Generation X) [c] Nomad (Reactive) 1961–1981 (21) 2nd Turning: Awakening: Consciousness Revolution, Fourth Great Awakening 1964–1984 (20)
Millennial Generation (Generation Y) [d] Hero (Civic) 1982–2004 (23) 3rd Turning: Unraveling: Neoliberalism/Culture Wars, Tech Bubble 1984–2007 (23)
Homeland Generation [e] Artist (Adaptive) 2005–present (16*) 4th Turning: Crisis: War on Terror, [f] Great Recession, COVID-19 pandemic/recession [84] 2008–present (13*)

Notes Edit

  1. ^ Strauss and Howe base the turning start and end dates not on the generational birth year span, but when the prior generation is entering adulthood. A generation "coming of age" is signaled by a "triggering event" that marks the turning point and the ending of one turning and the beginning of the new. For example, the "triggering event" that marked the coming of age for the Baby Boom Generation was the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This marked the end of a first turning and the beginning of a second turning. This is why turning start and end dates don't match up exactly with the generational birth years, but they tend to start and end a few years after the generational year spans. This also explains why a generation is described to have "entered childhood" during a particular turning, rather than "born during" a particular turning.
  2. ^ According to Strauss and Howe their generational types have appeared in Anglo-American history in a fixed order for more than 500 years with one hitch, occurring in the Civil War Saeculum. They say the reason for this is because according to the chart, the Civil War came about ten years too early the adult generations allowed the worst aspects of their generational personalities to come through and the Progressives grew up scarred rather than ennobled. As a result, there is no Hero Generation in this Cycle, although some alternative versions of the theory do include one.
  3. ^ Strauss and Howe initially used the name "13th Generation" in their 1991 book Generations, which was published mere weeks before Douglas Coupland's Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, but later adopted "Generation X" when it became the more widely accepted term for the cohort. The generation is so numbered because it is the thirteenth generation alive since American Independence (counting back until Benjamin Franklin's Awakening Generation). [33]
  4. ^ "Millennial Generation", a term Strauss and Howe used in their 1991 book Generations, has become the most widely-accepted name for this generation. Other names used in reference to it include Generation Y (as it is the generation following Generation X) and the Net Generation.
  5. ^ "New Silent Generation" was a proposed holding name used by Howe and Strauss in their 1991 book Generations. Howe has since referred to them as the "Homeland Generation" (or "New Adaptive Generation") as they are the first generation to enter childhood after protective surveillance state measures, like the Department of Homeland Security, were put into effect following the September 11 attacks. This generation is now more widely referred to as "Generation Z". [8]
  6. ^Generations and The Fourth Turning were published before the September 11 attacks, and some believe that this event was the catalyst of the Fourth Turning. However, Neil Howe identifies the Great Recession of 2008 as the catalyst.

The Strauss and Howe retelling of history through a generational lens has received mixed reviews. Many reviewers have praised the authors for their ambition, erudition and accessibility. For example, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who graduated from Harvard University with Strauss, called Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 the most stimulating book on American history he'd ever read. He even sent a copy to each member of Congress. [8] The theory has been influential in the fields of generational studies, marketing, and business management literature. However, it has also been criticized by several historians and some political scientists and journalists, as being overly-deterministic, non-falsifiable, and unsupported by rigorous evidence. [4] [5] [6]

Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 Edit

After the publication of their first book Generations, Martin Keller a professor of history at Brandeis University, said that the authors "had done their homework". He said that their theory could be seen as pop-sociology and that it would "come in for a lot more criticism as history. But it's almost always true that the broader you cast your net, the more holes it's going to have. And I admire [the authors'] boldness." [85] Sociologist David Riesman and political scientist Richard Neustadt offered strong, if qualified, praise. Riesman found in the work an "impressive grasp of a great many theoretical and historical bits and pieces" and Neustadt said Strauss and Howe "are asking damned important questions, and I honor them." [5] The Times Literary Supplement called it "fascinating" and "about as vague and plausible as astrological predictions". [15] Publishers Weekly called it "as woolly as a newspaper horoscope". [8] [14]

In 1991, Jonathan Alter wrote in Newsweek that Generations was a "provocative, erudite and engaging analysis of the rhythms of American life". However, he believed it was also "an elaborate historical horoscope that will never withstand scholarly scrutiny." He continued, "these sequential 'peer personalities' are often silly, but the book provides reams of fresh evidence that American history is indeed cyclical, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and others have long argued." But he complained, "The generational boundaries are plainly arbitrary. The authors lump together everyone born from 1943 through the end of 1960 (Baby Boomers), a group whose two extremes have little in common. And the predictions are facile and reckless." He concluded: "However fun and informative, the truth about generational generalizations is that they're generally unsatisfactory." [13] Arthur E. Levine, a former president of the Teachers College of Columbia University said "Generational images are stereotypes. There are some differences that stand out, but there are more similarities between students of the past and the present. But if you wrote a book saying that, how interesting would it be?" [8]

In response to criticism that they stereotype or generalize all members of a generation the authors have said, "We've never tried to say that any individual generation is going to be monochromatic. It'll obviously include all kinds of people. But as you look at generations as social units, we consider it to be at least as powerful and, in our view, far more powerful than other social groupings such as economic class, race, sex, religion and political parties." [17]

Gerald Pershall wrote in 1991: "Generations is guaranteed to attract pop history and pop social science buffs. Among professional historians, it faces a tougher sell. Period specialists will resist the idea that their period is akin to several others. Sweeping theories of history are long out of fashion in the halls of ivy, and the authors' lack of academic standing won't help their cause. Their generational quartet is "just too wooden" and "too neat," says one Yale historian. "Prediction is for prophets," scoffed William McLoughlin (a former history professor at Brown), who said it is wrong to think that "if you put enough data together and have enough charts and graphs, you've made history into a science." He also said the book might get a friendlier reception in sociology and political science departments than the science department. [5]

In 1991, professor and New York Times writer Jay Dolan critiqued Generations for not talking more about class, race and sex, to which Neil Howe replied that they "are probably generalizations not even as effective as a generation to say something about how people think and behave. One of the things to understand is that most historians never look at history in terms of generations. They prefer to tell history as a seamless row of 55-year-old leaders who always tend to think and behave the same way -- but they don't and they never have. If you look at the way America's 55-year-old leaders were acting in the 1960s -- you know, the ebullience and confidence of the JFKs and LBJs and Hubert Humphreys -- and compare them with today's leaders in Congress -- the indecision, the lack of sure-footedness -- I think you would have to agree that 55-year-olds do not always act the same way and you're dealing with powerful generational forces at work that explain why one generation of war veterans, war heroes, and another generation which came of age in very different circumstances tend to have very different instincts about acting in the world.” [17]

Responding to criticisms in 1991, William Strauss accepted that some historians might not like their theory, which they presented as a new paradigm for looking at American history, that filled a need for a unifying vision of American history:

People are looking for a new way to connect themselves to the larger story of America. That is the problem. We've felt adrift over the past 10 years, and we think that the way history has been presented over the past couple of decades has been more in terms of the little pieces and people are not as interested in the little pieces now. They're looking for a unifying vision. We haven't had unifying visions of the story of America for decades now, and we're trying to provide it in this book. The kinds of historians who are drawn to our book -- and I'm sure it will be very controversial among academics because we are presenting something that is so new -- but the kinds who are drawn to it are the ones who themselves have focused on the human life cycle rather than just the sequential series of events. Some good examples of that are Morton Keller up at Brandeis and David Hackett Fischer. These are people who have noticed the power in not just generations, but the shifts that have happened over time in the way Americans have treated children and older people and have tried to link that to the broader currents of history. [17]

The Fourth Turning Edit

In his review for the Boston Globe, historian David Kaiser called The Fourth Turning "a provocative and immensely entertaining outline of American history, Strauss and Howe have taken a gamble". "If the United States calmly makes it to 2015, their work will end up in the ashcan of history, but if they are right, they will take their place among the great American prophets." [86] Kaiser has since argued that Strauss and Howe's predictions of coming crisis seems to have occurred, citing events such as 9/11, [87] the 2008 financial crisis, [88] and the recent political gridlock. [89]

Kaiser has incorporated Strauss and Howe's theory in two historical works of his own, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War (2000), and No End Save Victory: How FDR Led the Nation into War (2014). [90] [91] Michael Lind, a historian and co-founder of the New America Foundation, wrote that The Fourth Turning (1997) was vague and verged into the realm of "pseudoscience" "most of the authors' predictions about the American future turn out to be as vague as those of fortune cookies". [6] [92] Lind said that the theory is essentially "non-falsifiable" and "mystifying," although he believed the authors did have some insights into modern American history.

For The New York Times in 2017, Pulitzer-winning journalist Jeremy Peters wrote that "many academic historians dismiss the book as about as scientific as astrology or a Nostradamus text." [9]

Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton University, said, “'It’s just a conceit. It’s a fiction, it’s all made up,' Wilentz said about cyclical historical models. 'There’s nothing to them. They’re just inventions.'" [92]

13th Gen Edit

In 1993, Andrew Leonard reviewed the book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?. He wrote “as the authors (Strauss and Howe) relentlessly attack the iniquitous 'child-abusive culture' of the 1960s and '70s and exult in heaping insult after insult on their own generation -- they caricature Baby Boomers as countercultural, long-haired, sex-obsessed hedonists -- their real agenda begins to surface. That agenda becomes clear in part of their wish list for how the 13th generation may influence the future: "13ers will reverse the frenzied and centrifugal cultural directions of their younger years. They will clean up entertainment, de-diversify the culture, reinvent core symbols of national unity, reaffirm rituals of family and neighborhood bonding, and re-erect barriers to cushion communities from unwanted upheaval." [93]

Again in 1993, writing for The Globe and Mail, Jim Cormier reviewed the same book: "self-described boomers Howe and Strauss add no profound layer of analysis to previous pop press observations. But in cobbling together a more extensive overview of the problems and concerns of the group they call the 13ers, they've created a valuable primer for other fogeys who are feeling seriously out of touch." Cormier wrote that the authors "raised as many new questions as answers about the generation that doesn't want to be a generation. But at least they've made an honest, empathetic and good-humoured effort to bridge the bitter gap between the twentysomethings and fortysomethings." [94]

In 1993, Charles Laurence at the London Daily Telegraph wrote that, in 13th Gen, Strauss and Howe offered this youth generation "a relatively neutral definition as the 13th American generation from the Founding Fathers,". [95] According to Alexander Ferron's review in Eye Magazine, "13th Gen is best read as the work of two top-level historians. While its agenda is the 13th generation, it can also be seen as an incredibly well-written and exhaustive history of America from 1960 to 1981--examining the era through everything except the traditional historical subjects (war, politics, famine, etc)." [96]

In 2011, Jon D. Miller, at the Longitudinal Study of American Youth, funded by the National Science Foundation, [97] wrote that their birth year definition (1961 to 1981) of "Generation X" ("13th Gen") has been widely used in popular and academic literature. [98]

Millennials Rising Edit

David Brooks reviewed the follow-up book about the next generation titled Millennials Rising (2000). "Millennials" is a term coined by Strauss and Howe. [99] Brooks wrote: “This is not a good book, if by good you mean the kind of book in which the authors have rigorously sifted the evidence and carefully supported their assertions with data. But it is a very good bad book. It's stuffed with interesting nuggets. It's brightly written. And if you get away from the generational mumbo jumbo, it illuminates changes that really do seem to be taking place.” [4] Further, Brooks wrote that the generations aren't treated equally: "Basically, it sounds as if America has two greatest generations at either end of the age scale and two crummiest in the middle". [4]

In 2001, reviewer Dina Gomez wrote in NEA Today that they make their case “convincingly,” with “intriguing analysis of popular culture” but conceded that it "over-generalizes". Gomez argued that it is “hard to resist its hopeful vision for our children and future." [100]

Millennials Rising ascribes seven "core traits" to Millennials: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving. A 2009, Chronicle of Higher Education report commented Howe and Strauss based these core traits on a "hodgepodge of anecdotes, statistics, and pop-culture references" and on surveys of approximately 600 high-school seniors from Fairfax County, Virginia, an affluent county with median household income approximately twice the national average. The report described Millennials Rising as a "good-news revolution" making "sweeping predictions" and as describing Millennials as "rule followers who were engaged, optimistic, and downright pleasant", commenting the "book gave educators and tens of millions of parents, a warm feeling, saying who wouldn't want to hear that their kids are special?" [8]

General Edit

In 2006, Frank Giancola wrote an article in Human Resource Planning that stated "the emphasis on generational differences is not generally borne out by empirical research, despite its popularity". [101]

In 2016 an article was published that explains the differences in generations, observed with the employer's position, through the development of working conditions, initiated by the employer. [102] This development is due to the competition of firms on the job market for receiving more highly skilled workers. New working conditions as a product on the market have a classic product life-cycle and when they become widespread standard expectations of employees change accordingly.

One criticism of Strauss and Howe's theory, and generational studies is that conclusions are overly broad and do not reflect the reality of every person in each generation regardless of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, or genetic information. [103] [104] For example, Hoover cited the case of Millennials by writing that "commentators have tended to slap the Millennial label on white, affluent teenagers who accomplish great things as they grow up in the suburbs, who confront anxiety when applying to super-selective colleges, and who multitask with ease as their helicopter parents hover reassuringly above them. The label tends not to appear in renderings of teenagers who happen to be minorities, or poor, or who have never won a spelling bee. Nor does the term often refer to students from big cities and small towns that are nothing like Fairfax County, Va., or who lack technological know-how. Or who struggle to complete high school. Or who never even consider college. Or who commit crimes. Or who suffer from too little parental support. Or who drop out of college. Aren't they Millennials too?" [8]

In their 2000 book Millennials Rising they brought attention to the Millennial children of immigrants in the United States, "who face daunting challenges." [105] They wrote "one-third have no health insurance, live below the poverty line and live in overcrowded housing". [105]

In a February 2017 article from Quartz two journalists commented on the theory saying: "it is too vague to be proven wrong, and has not been taken seriously by most professional historians. But it is superficially compelling, and plots out to some degree how America’s history has unfolded since its founding". [29]

In an April 2017 article from Politico, David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University, described Strauss–Howe generational theory as "crackpot theories". [11]

A May 2017 article from Quartz described Strauss–Howe generational theory as "pseudoscience". [10]

Peter Turchin, a scientist and specialist in the fields of cultural evolution, cliodynamics and structural-demographic theory has criticised Strauss–Howe generational theory, stating that it is not a scientific theory, and that it is more akin to a prophecy, since it "forces the historical record to fit a postulated cycle by stretching in some places and cutting off a bit here and there in others". [106]

American electronic musician Oneohtrix Point Never was inspired by The Fourth Turning for the concept of his 2018 album Age Of and its accompanying performance installation MYRIAD. [107]

Will Arbery's play Heroes of the Fourth Turning, first produced at New York's Playwrights Horizons in 2019, is inspired by the theories of Strauss and Howe, and the character Teresa is a vocal proponent of them. [108] [109]

Richard Howe - History

Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.) Dissertation: A Defense of Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way

Dr. Richard G. Howe is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Howe has a BA in Bible from Mississippi College, an MA in Philosophy from the University of Mississippi, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Arkansas. Both his master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation focused on the issue of the existence of God. His master’s theses is titled “An Analysis of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument” in which Dr. Howe defended the argument against objections that had come out against the argument subsequent to the publishing of Dr. Craig’s important book on the subject.

Dr. Howe’s doctoral dissertation is titled “A Defense of Thomas Aquinas’s Second Way” in which he defended Aquinas’s efficient causality argument for the existence of God against criticisms of theistic arguments in general, against criticisms of causal theistic arguments more narrowly, and against specific criticisms to Aquinas’s version of the efficient causality argument for God’s existence—the second of Aquinas’s famous “Five Ways.”

Dr. Howe is the past President of the International Society of Christian Apologetics (ISCA). He is a writer as well as a public speaker and debater in churches, conferences, and university campuses on issues concerning Christian apologetics and philosophy. He has spoken and/or debated in churches and universities in the US and Canada as well as Europe and Africa on issues relating to the defense of the Christian faith.

Redcoats land at Long Island

On August 22, 1776, the British arrive at Long Island, between Gravesend and New Utrecht, with “near twenty four thousand men ready to land in a moment,” according to one observer.

General William Howe’s large army came to Long Island hoping to capture New York City and gain control of the Hudson River, a victory that would divide the rebellious colonies in half. Five days later, on August 27, the Redcoats marched against the Patriot position at Brooklyn Heights, overcoming the Americans at Gowanus Pass and then outflanking the entire Continental Army. The Americans suffered 1,000 casualties to the British loss of only 400 men during the fighting. Howe chose not to follow the advice of his subordinates, however, and did not storm the Patriot redoubts at Brooklyn Heights, where he could have taken the Patriots’ military leadership prisoner and ended the rebellion.

General Washington ordered a retreat to Manhattan by boat. The British could easily have prevented this retreat and captured most of the Patriot officer corps, including Washington. However, General William and Admiral Richard Howe still hoped to convince the Americans to rejoin the British empire in the wake of the humiliating defeat, instead of forcing the former colonies into submission after executing Washington and his officers as traitors. On September 11, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and other congressional representatives reopened negotiations with the Howe brothers on Staten Island. The negotiations fell through when the British refused to accept American independence.

Watch the video: CRASH TEST COLLECTION 669 - MARTINE COSMETICS (January 2022).