An Armed Civil Rights Resistance

My coworkers and I were talking today and an interesting what-if was posed. What would have happened if during the midst of the Civil Rights movement, things got so bad that the black leadership including MLK (I understand its completely not within his character but talking theoretically) took up arms for their cause.

What would have happened, where would the world be today, and what would be the status of race in this nation; not just between whites and blacks but also Hispanics, Asians, etc.
 
My coworkers and I were talking today and an interesting what-if was posed. What would have happened if during the midst of the Civil Rights movement, things got so bad that the black leadership including MLK (I understand its completely not within his character but talking theoretically) took up arms for their cause.

What would have happened, where would the world be today, and what would be the status of race in this nation; not just between whites and blacks but also Hispanics, Asians, etc.
It's certainly not going to be a better world, that's for sure.

IOTL one of the main reasons for the Civil Rights movement's success was that the non-violence being seen on tv pushed a lot of whites to sympathize with their side(seeing Bull Conner unleash the dogs and fire hoses would do that) but if they start seeing Blacks taking up arms and fighting violently that's going to make the response a lot harsher and I really don't want to contemplate how fucked up the US would be in that situation.
 

wormyguy

Banned
There were groups that did this, to an extent (the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc.) The response was not terribly positive.
 
If the civil rights in general turned violent, there would be massive reactionarism from the majority. They would lose any support or sympahty they had. I, for one, can't understand why they couldn't just treat all Americans the same back then? After all, we are all the same color on the inside; a sort of dark reddish-blue.
 
The Kiat said:
If the civil rights in general turned violent, there would be massive reactionarism from the majority. They would lose any support or sympahty they had. I, for one, can't understand why they couldn't just treat all Americans the same back then? After all, we are all the same color on the inside; a sort of dark reddish-blue.

Actually it was non-violent in its start. The major leaders such as MLK advocated non-violence *AND* integration, where it didn't matter what color one was. We were all Americans. Folks like the Nation of Islam (which is essentially a black supremacist group) were separatists and weren't seeking integration but their own separate country I'm guessing.

I agree if it started out violent *and* separatist, it probably would have only lasted maybe 5 years tops until squashed. Blacks would be even more of a minority probably due to emigration elsewhere as well as attrition initially to the violence; blacks would represent a far smaller percentage of the US population than the current 13%. It's a sad road to explore I admit.

Personally I think perhaps a more interesting and optimistic TL would be if MLK was not assassinated *and* Malcolm X was not assassinated. MLK was a growing political force due to his notoriety and the common cause that seemed to be breaking down the racial barriers. Malcolm X after his hajj had ditched the Nation of Islam basically mainly due to the dichotomy between the separatist racist teachings of Elijah Muhammad (as well as the corruption within the NoI's higher echelons) and his experiences with Muslims of all races and colors during his hajj. What would the country be like if MLK was able to hold enough influence to push through his dream in a way that was dignified and didn't have the long-lasting bad effects that LBJ's programs did (i.e. Affirmative Action, Welfare, etc...) ? How would race relations be if Malcolm X had not been assassinated? But this is off the topic.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Absolute disaster. The movement toward equal rights would be stopped dead, with the Barnetts and Wallaces of the South becoming prophets instead of pariahs.

There is no way to gain what Dr. King and the Civil Rights effort desired, namely full integration of a MINORITY at the barrel of a gun. You can displace a minority government, as was eventually done in South Africa, if there is a serious undercurrent of violence in the effort, but in a case where the oppressed comprise 10% of the population, violence is a sure loser.

The U.S. would be a VERY different, and much worse, place to live.
 
My coworkers and I were talking today and an interesting what-if was posed. What would have happened if during the midst of the Civil Rights movement, things got so bad that the black leadership including MLK (I understand its completely not within his character but talking theoretically) took up arms for their cause.

The outcome depends on how they're "taking up arms". If you mean an aggressive, actively violent movement then I'd agree with the others that you're looking at a disaster.

If you mean encouraging self-defense, including armed self-defense, then that might be a different story, but that happened to a degree as it was. I remember reading an interview with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice years ago in which she described her family's response to living in the Jim Crow south. She mentioned how her father and others had been stocking and hiding guns to defend against another church burning or violent incident. Southern law enforcement was not too keen on allowing blacks to hold arms, of course.
 
Top