Butterflies? One condition: he stays out of electoral politics. Since he called himself a socialist by 1968, that shouldn't be too hard.
Why more Socially Conservative? I'd doubt that. Conservative white backlash evolved from a more radicalized Civil Rights movement and counterculture. With King, I can see that radicalization being avoided, and as the counterculture was tied to Civil Rights, the counterculture also being at least less radicalized over the course of the 1970's and those last two years of the 1960's.So a more socially conservative US then? OK, but what happens with him personally? Among other things he reportedly planned a private RFK endorsement, which would have to be kept under wraps for obvious reasons.
Rogue Beaver is the only one that doesn't get it. >>>>Given that the link doesn't workOkay- well RogueBeaver may not get all of this but I think it is absolutely 100% relevant.
Rogue Beaver is the only one that doesn't get it. >>>>Given that the link doesn't work
Why more Socially Conservative? I'd doubt that. Conservative white backlash evolved from a more radicalized Civil Rights movement and counterculture. With King, I can see that radicalization being avoided, and as the counterculture was tied to Civil Rights, the counterculture also being at least less radicalized over the course of the 1970's and those last two years of the 1960's.
Civil rights could continue on less militantly. The Black Panthers and all really came to power in a vacuum and because of disillusion.
But, Martin Luther King really wanted to begin to focus on poverty and ending it were he to have lived past 1968. So I think he'll go into that movement.
It may have played a large part, but I'm not cynical as to be ok with the idea that white backlash was just because of Civil rights, regardless of how radical the followers were.Your Majesty, I don't think the white backlash was entirely because of the radicalization of the movement. I believe that when the movement's CoG went to the North (where economics/open housing was the issue), that's when it began. The reception he received in Chicago in 1967 was arguably worse than Bloody Sunday: tens of thousands of people jeering, some throwing bricks at him and chanting "coon-catcher". Only the vast police presence prevented it from getting out of control.
I know that. I'm talking about the radicalization that came in the last few years of the 1960's and in the 1970's. The Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and so forth.Counterculture was already in full swing by the time he as assassinated.
King was not the be-all-end-all of social change. The matter does not necessarily lie with what he would have done but the fact that he was killed. The death of MLK and RFK really did brew disillusion into a fine radicalism, which could perhaps be said to have lent to issues like the women's movement, gay rights, abortion and so forth. Then again, there's nothing to say those couldn't have still come along as an extension of the 1960's social progress.I think the US would be more socially conservative. Unlike today's "black leaders" King didn't really have a party line to knowtow to so he wouldn't have avoided certain issues for political sakes. Unlike Jackson, Sharpton, and co. he was very much against abortion and would have forced the issue with the Democratic Party.
Progress is not so much based on big men as the little men who choose to follow the big men who concentrate their collective energies.Your Majesty: I don't think either of them were very favourable to such liberal social developments, being SoCons on non-racial issues.And yes, that includes the womens' movement.
Maybe. I haven't read King's biographies to know which way his character would have taken him with certainty. I think there's at least a rudimentary possibility that if not outright supportive, he won't be damning and condemning.Does King become more socially liberal, perhaps seeing these movements as an extension of his own? Julian Bond did IOTL.
So...no one could get the video to work?![]()