aishumurali wrote:
I feel this statement is overly twisted , is there any way to understand the fact explained in this statement?
Hi There!
Let me try helping you!
Solved this in 7 mins with 3/4 correct.
The 1960's witnessed
two profound social movements: the civil rights movement and the movement protesting the war in Vietnam.
Although they
overlapped in time, they were
largely distinct. For a brief moment in 1967,
however, it appeared that the two movements might unite under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. King's role in the antiwar movement appears to require little explanation
since he was the foremost advocate of nonviolence of his time. But King's
stance on the Vietnam War
cannot be explained in terms of
pacifism alone. After all, he was something of a latecomer to the antiwar movement,
even though by 1965 he was
convinced that the role of the United States in the war was indefensible.
Why then the two years that passed before he translated his private misgivings into public dissent?
Perhaps he believed that he couldn't criticize American foreign policy without endangering the support for civil rights that he had won from the federal government.
Focus on the highlighted parts. Picking up cues such as these helps to not get into detail, but still understand the whole picture.
The author says that there are two profound social moments- x & y. Although(there is some contrast) they overlapped in time, they were distinct. However(Double contrast) you know the author might say that although they were distinct they might be similar under MLK. And then the author explains the role as to why the movement united under MLK. Then again, this cannot be aptly explained, because MLK was a late comer in the movement and further delineates his view by asking and question and presents his view on the question.
Let me know if you need further help & I hope this helps!