You're comparing 1960s America to colonial (and later) America. It's certainly possible that the damage done later on was greater, as there was a greater disbursement of knowledge, media, and information during a time in which the country was known as the land of opportunity, the melting pot.
A speech calling for violence in the time of newspapers and television is surely more damaging than that same speech given in an auditorium in the early 1800s to a select group..
I am not attempting to put a 'value' on the whole of slave trade, that's impossible. I'd merely like to point out the 'apples vs. oranges' nature of your comparison.
People give such speeches today in mainstream right-wing rallies and are not criticized for it at all, let alone as harshly as Malcolm X is criticized. That's apples to apples since it's still the time of newspapers and television.
In the context of the previous two comments, it was stated that present-day mainstream right-wing speeches call for violence. If so, I must have missed it. I did not intend for my statement to reflect on the actions of Malcolm X.
It worked for King, it worked for Ghandi. Do you really think there could have been something like the civil rights laws -- born primarily of white people -- if the primary black person had been X and not King?
It is patently absurd to give MLK's non-violent movement 100% of the credit for civil rights reform. The political situation during that time was unbelievably complex, and the changing attitudes of a turbulent nation cannot be so simply explained.
Yet it was Ghandi himself who, when asked if his peaceful tactics would have worked against Hitler, said, "probably not."
I'm not suggesting that white people are literally Hitler, but simply that there's a time and place for everything, including peace and violence. And I say that as someone who has never called for violence on anything ever.
