|
|
|
|
|
|
by sangnoir
658 days ago
|
|
|
> I don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US) I can think of 2. The end of the reconstruction period (slash-start-of-Jim-Crow) was brought about by violence (and threats of violence). The newly-formed KKK and fellow travellers successfully used lynchings to deter the formerly enslaved from participating in the political process (as candidates and voters), which was the status quo. The Stonewall riots were were a another one - I'm certain there are more examples in between those 2. |
|
|
To be fair civil rights and relative racial equality was imposed by an (effectively) foreign army of occupation.
That army leaving is what led to Jim Crow, there was hardly any meaningful bottom-top societal change since the local Republican governments could have never survived without significant external support anyway.
KKK/etc. were effectively an unofficial enforcement branch / citizen militia of the local elites and state governments.
IMHO the situation was a bit like the war in Afghanistan (just with a slightly narrower cultural gap). Women rights could only survive as long as the US/NATO force were there to impose them and they reverted to the status quo as soon as the foreign militaries left.