New Reality Seeds

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Drifter

With no big oil flows, international shipping dies - at least on an industrial scale.

It can continue on a late nineteenth-century scale with coal-fired steam ships. Even sail for stuff that isn't time-critical.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Randyman

There were civil rights groups and demonstrations outside of the American South, too. (c.f. Chicago, "The city that broke Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.") Did these not survive the crackdowns, or did the initial crackdowns prevent their formation/occurrence?

I'm thinking survived, but suffering huge reversals. The backlash was strong enough in Homeline, in this one with a violent Civil Rights movement, with people like Martin Luther King Jr. sidelined as ineffectual, liberal politicians would be less inclined to openly support such groups. They might not be completely destroyed, but it would be more like the Resistance movement in France during WWII - underground cells striking targets of opportunity.

MLK Jr. might be this timelines Gandhi.

Originally Posted by johndallman

It can continue on a late nineteenth-century scale with coal-fired steam ships. Even sail for stuff that isn't time-critical.

I was just thinking short term. Even if the ports and ships aren't destroyed, the economic collapse caused by the interruption of trade would dry up the markets for a decade or more. By then either the oil is flowing again out of new sources (Alaska, Texas, Venezuela) or coal-fired ships reconstruct the industry. If the war took place in 1967, its probably not until the early 80s you see steam traders.

I kind of like a war where the major oil fields are nuked. You still have the North Sea I guess, but taking most of the oil out of the picture for decades gives a gritty feel for a modern setting.

[scc]

Drifter, I'm not too sure on the timeline, but I'm guessing that Gandhi would have advocated non-violence only to get killed, that means that groups would TRY non-violent solutions, but the moment someone attacks them things get REALLY nasty

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by scc

Drifter, I'm not too sure on the timeline, but I'm guessing that Gandhi would have advocated non-violence only to get killed, that means that groups would TRY non-violent solutions, but the moment someone attacks them things get REALLY nasty

A quick look at nonviolence and civil disobedience shows they were around before Gandhi, so taking him out of the picture just stops him being a focal point and effective advocate for these ideas.

Ahimsa is a concept in Jainism, an Indian religion. So if Indian culture is being transported across the oceans, along with their wealth and power, there is a better chance the ideas of nonviolence are more widespread and acceptable. Side note - hippies, or at least beatniks with Indian influences, appear in the 50s instead of the late 60s. Maybe even the 40s if India is a big industrial supplier by the end of the war, so you get Oddball from Kelly's Heroes.

Civil disobedience was used against the British Empire in Egypt in 1919. Thoreau wrote about it in 1848. Gandhi was formulating his ideas about it in South Africa by 1906, contrasting it to "passive resistance" which was known and used (to no great effect apparently) for some time. So when Gandhi is assassinated in 1933 he had a following and a body of work, if not completely developed. He closely linked nonviolence with civil disobedience, but without him maybe that link isn't too solid.

So you get two post-Gandhi camps. One that took his undeveloped ideas of nonviolent civil disobedience, and the other (with less Indian/Jain influence, so likely British, American, other non-Indian) that just took the ideas of civil disobedience but used "violent, intimidatory, coercive disobedience" as more effective. Somewhere in here is an anti-Gandhi, someone who took his ability to organize c.d., but is happy enough to blow things up. Maybe this person is Czech or South African. His philosophy of organized violent disobedience to the state can be so effective and dangerous that ISWAT has banned its export.

[scc]

Drifter, you missed my point. If Gandhi was advocating peaceful methods when he was killed by some unknown third party, these peaceful methods might not see a 100% take up, groups will try using them, only to lash out when attacked, which could cause lots of problems for the US.

New idea: Second Amendment one or another American president turns the tables on the militias and other gun owning groups, in accordance with the Second Amendment they MUST submit the government regulation or be disbanded

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by scc

New idea: Second Amendment one or another American president turns the tables on the militias and other gun owning groups, in accordance with the Second Amendment they MUST submit the government regulation or be disbanded

That'd take a Supreme Court decision to leave in effect. And you'd see "civil disobedience" on a massive scale in its wake. See recent U.S. events IRL for evidence (and I'll say no more since this isn't GenChat).

[oldgringo2001]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Remember without Gandhi the idea of non-violence doesn't have a big-name advocate.

Gee, I thought Jesus and Buddha were pretty big names. Christian pacifism is a very old American tradition. It was a big factor in the Abolition movement of the 19th century, the Populist and Progressive movements, and the Prohibition movement, and, of course, the Civil Rights movement.

And I'm old enough to remember that it was Buddhist agitation in South Vietnam that began turning American public opinion against the anti-communist Diem regime. Of course, the Vietnamese Buddhists helped trade expoitation by a corrupt Catholic elite for a corrupt Communist elite, but at least they got the satisfaction of seeing the Catholics under the same thumb as themselves.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Remember without Gandhi the idea of non-violence doesn't have a big-name advocate. Everything from colonial independence movements to the US Civil Rights efforts are violent, destructive and see far harsher retaliations.

Doctor King and other Civil Rights workers came up with many of the non-violent resistance methods on there own. Also Gandhi's main ideas on non-violence were known in the late 1920's. Gandhi in this history would be as much a martyr as in our own.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by scc

New idea: Second Amendment one or another American president turns the tables on the militias and other gun owning groups, in accordance with the Second Amendment they MUST submit the government regulation or be disbanded

I suspect that would require a change in the definition of "militia" in the USA, bringing the definition into line with the Commonwealth definition of "synonym for military reservists." How would that change come about?

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by scc

Drifter, you missed my point. If Gandhi was advocating peaceful methods when he was killed by some unknown third party, these peaceful methods might not see a 100% take up, groups will try using them, only to lash out when attacked, which could cause lots of problems for the US.

By 1933 Gandhi already had a large body of work that many people would continue to use. Many of his ideas where already present in the cultures of Britain and India, so they have to be dealt with to get to the point of violent groups. Maybe I shouldn't have said anti-Gandhi but a Twisted Gandhi, someone who took his organization of disobedience but warps it into a violent reaction. Not even warped - tradition Eastern martial arts are violent and designed to hurt people, but should be used only in self defense. Uncivil Disobedience could follow that tactic.

Originally Posted by oldgringo2001

Gee, I thought Jesus and Buddha were pretty big names. Christian pacifism is a very old American tradition. It was a big factor in the Abolition movement of the 19th century, the Populist and Progressive movements, and the Prohibition movement, and, of course, the Civil Rights movement.

Big names but with lousy spokesmen. Gandhi was THE big advocate of pacifism, and taught how to make it actually work instead of just not fighting back when Da Man stomped you. Abolitionist-style pacifism in the West still works (in this alternate) but without Gandhi, or a relaunched Swaraj that centers of personal independence through violence, its not a driving force in this world.

Originally Posted by scc

New idea: Second Amendment one or another American president turns the tables on the militias and other gun owning groups, in accordance with the Second Amendment they MUST submit the government regulation or be disbanded

Possible. Gun control started with NRA support in the 30s. It was a reaction to the Civil Rights movement in the 60s that gun control became codified - to some small extent (no hate-mail please). It wasn't until the 70s it took the political focus it does today. So if you see increased violence starting in the 50s, an increasingly dictatorial government might use it to enforce a militia requirement.

Remember Randyman that current ideas on gun control and the NRA are relatively recent.