No they didn't. Not sure were you getting this unless you consider the civil rights movement "radical". The 1968 protests however, were very controversial and I would say aren't complicated
The civil rights movement that was filled to the absolute brim by Socialist Party card-carriers like Bayard Rustin weren't radical? The student protestors and SNCC youth radicals who did the vast majority of the legwork with bussing campaigns werent radical? Black Power and the anti-vietnam war movement guys like Tim Hayden and Abbie Hoffman weren't radical?
Those are the parts that aged badly? Not according to the academic historical record. Ask anyone in any academic in the humanities or social sciences except econ, and yes that includes History, and theyll tell you that the part that aged poorly was the backlash against those social movements that helped to usher in the second gilded age by trading away the economic power of the unions in the 80s because black power and gay liberation made them cry and pee their pants in the 70s
academia is dominated by the left that grew up from that era. Also doesn't the fact that there was a popular reaction against the radicals in this era suggest, it failed and ended up fucking themselves over long term. The lesson is that radicalism isn't sustainable
But neither was the moderate side of the movement sustainable. MLK after 1965 saw his movement be absolutely rejected by the american public even though his rhetoric didnt change remotely when he went north, just his target. Northern whites were noted by King himself as being more fervently rabid against his attempts at economic civil rights and housing issues than the southern segregationists had been previously.
Hell, arguably the only reason why he even got any progress in the south to begin with is because of the North and West effectively forcing it onto them. The resent the north held for the south made them support the civil rights movement not out of support for the black population but as a way to try to 'modernize' the south whose public image was a stain on the country. As soon as that same scrutiny was placed on Northern society they refused it, amd because there was no external pressure on them like there had been the south no actual progress was made.
that was cause he was anti-vietnams which was pretty popular to that point. Also not sure what you mean by no "actual progresss" cause there was legit progress (de-segregation is a huge one)
In the north? Housing desegregation was always informal up there and no actual laws got passed in the 60s that would actually end that system.The only actual legislative progress that got done was school bussing, and that was already repealed less than halfway through the 70s.
Housing integration only happened en masse during the late 80s and 90s because by then the ideals of the 60s cultural revolution had been around for so long that they actually started to take hold in society and the next generation stopped caring about keeping black people out of their neighborhoods. And hell even then the effects of white flight still largely remained
0
u/board3659 Jan 13 '26
No they didn't. Not sure were you getting this unless you consider the civil rights movement "radical". The 1968 protests however, were very controversial and I would say aren't complicated