comment: >
  
  I think he's very wrong.  I agree with MLK's assertion that "riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve."
  That was from his speech where he said riots are "the language of the unheard."  He understood why they happened, but the thought they were tactically foolish and self-destructive.  
  Also, Malcolm X's analysis of historical revolutions is laughably bad, from his thoughts on causes to his ideas about what happened.  "There was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution"?  Really, dude?  Nothing?  Really?
  Beyond that, the combining of every white person ever into something called "the white man" as if such a creature exists and has agency is absurd.  Do you attack all white people because of the actions of some white people?  Or, should you instead insist on finding the individual perpetrators of atrocities like church bombings and seek out justice against them?  In the case of the bombing in Mississippi, it took electing Bill Baxley as AG of Alabama to get justice, a process that involved voting, campaigning, and so on rather than the violence advocated for by Malcolm X.
context: Yeah, that's pretty much it.  I prefer the second iteration of Malcolm X, but the first is still good.