WI: gays fight for civil rights in the 1960s, and blacks fight for civil rights in the 2010s?

IOTL, the Black Civil Rights movement was in the 1960s, and the Gay Civil Rights movement was in the 2010s.

What if they were reversed?

I think if the Black Civil Rights movement was in the 2010s, you would see a lot less religious rhetoric than there was in OTL.
 
I think a gay civil rights movement is much less successful in the 1960s. IOTL people's general attitudes towards sex had been liberalizing for several decades before the gay rights movement got off the ground, and with no Black civil rights movement to serve as a template for organization, the gay movement is going to have a hard time getting off the ground.
 
I think you’d need a couple of factors: (1) IRA like black terrorist groups causing trouble via smuggled weapons and certain sympathizers throughout the first third of the century (at the real extreme get a black radical to kill Wilson and William Jennings Bryan in office) (2) a stronger sexual revolution of the 1920s-40s, and (3) highly sympathetic gay victims - especially a collective group of war heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen - perhaps “Daisy Destroyer” crews saving merchant ships throughout a u-boat war. Also, if you get the group anti-communist and black as RED that could also play in. I’ve also heard that post-WWI English society didn’t look too closely at women living together and having a sexualized relationship because there weren’t enough men still alive and available. That could also change attitudes.

Butterflying Freud’s classification of homosexuality as a deviant orientation (as opposed to simply being behavior) is pre-1900 but probably the most important change. Simply having Victoria die in childbirth (or one of her useless uncles do something so scandalous as to actually have a child with the woman they married - as opposed to leaving a string of bastards - I think George IV had something like 11 illegitimate children) semi-early in her reign would also potentially change things. I mean regency culture was anything but prudish.

It’s much more likely you’d see a Chicano/Hispanic or Asian Civil Rights movement first in this kind of scenario.
 
Simply having Victoria die in childbirth (or one of her useless uncles do something so scandalous as to actually have a child with the woman they married - as opposed to leaving a string of bastards - I think George IV had something like 11 illegitimate children) semi-early in her reign would also potentially change things. I mean regency culture was anything but prudish.
I fail to see how having a mostly figurehead monarch butterflied away would cause a change in culture.
 
Top