comment: >
  
  1)Anyone who has ever listened to a Malcolm X speech knows he's often times hyperbolic. Being hyperbolic and being precisely aren't mutually exclusive things. The point he was making is this. When the Americans had their backs against the wall, they had a right to fight for their freedom and independence against the British. Blacks suffered way more than what the founding fathers suffered under the British. If the founding fathers had a right to bear arms in self defense then so do blacks. That's his point which seems to have gone over your head. 
  2)He's advocating armed self defense. And its pretty obvious who he's advocating for it against. White supremacist groups that were in the 60s consistently bombing and attacking black churches and homes. Let me ask you point blank. If a criminal or a terrorist is coming into your home where you have a wife, and children, including an infant, and they are about to kill them. And law enforcement did nothing to stop it. Do you have a right to bear arms to defend yourself and your family against the attackers? And if you do defend yourself are you the one "advocating violence"? 
  The type of response you're giving here is the exactly hypocrisy that Malcolm is speaking about when it comes to the discussion about violence. It was "advocating violence" when the American revolutionaries picked up arms in defense of no taxation without representation. But its apparently "advocating violence" when a people who have been the victims of the slave trade, and then segregation, and the outrages of the KKK where men, women, children and infants have been targeted, killed and lynched and burned alive and that people finally decides to defend themselves.
context: Yeah, that's pretty much it.  I prefer the second iteration of Malcolm X, but the first is still good. >
  
  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. >
  
  I think you are misunderstanding Malcolm X. I'll break it down. 
  1)Malcolm is often times witty and hyperbolic in his speeches. So the part you are talking about about the American Revolution, you're taking him way too literally there. He is pointing out that the same way how in those struggles armed self defense was justified when there was no other alternative, he is also saying blacks have a right to armed self defense when they are being murdered and killed by groups like the KKK and the government does nothing about it. 
  2)No where in those quotes and speeches does he say to attack all white people. If you read one of the quotes he says "be respectful, obey the law, but if someone lays a hand on you you send them to the cemetary". He is saying don't initiate violence. But if someone attacks you you have a right to defend yourself. And if someone attacks innocent men, women and children and babies you also have a right to pick up arms to defend them. He makes the point that in any other context that would be acceptable but in this context it is hypocritically denounced as "advocating violence". >
  
  1) I don't think I was taking him too literally.  He's pretty careful about saying that he's being precise in his revolution ramble with the whole "Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word “revolution” loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are."  He gets those characteristics wrong in terms of the American Revolution's level of bloodiness, and, really, as I said before, his facile analysis of the causes of  historical revolutions is just absurdly wrong.  
  2) If he's not advocating violence against a group of people, who is he advocating violence against?  He mentions church bombing in that rant - who is he going to go be violent against?  The perpetrators?  Is he talking about vigilante justice?  How exactly does this defense approach work in practice?  He's raging against non-violence, so that means he's pro-violence in "Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered."  Who do you think he's advocating violence against in those specific cases?  Unknown criminals who bombed churches?  Sure sounds like he's advocating it against someone, and in the preceding few lines he mentions "the white man" a whole bunch. >
  
  1)Anyone who has ever listened to a Malcolm X speech knows he's often times hyperbolic. Being hyperbolic and being precisely aren't mutually exclusive things. The point he was making is this. When the Americans had their backs against the wall, they had a right to fight for their freedom and independence against the British. Blacks suffered way more than what the founding fathers suffered under the British. If the founding fathers had a right to bear arms in self defense then so do blacks. That's his point which seems to have gone over your head. 
  2)He's advocating armed self defense. And its pretty obvious who he's advocating for it against. White supremacist groups that were in the 60s consistently bombing and attacking black churches and homes. Let me ask you point blank. If a criminal or a terrorist is coming into your home where you have a wife, and children, including an infant, and they are about to kill them. And law enforcement did nothing to stop it. Do you have a right to bear arms to defend yourself and your family against the attackers? And if you do defend yourself are you the one "advocating violence"? 
  The type of response you're giving here is the exactly hypocrisy that Malcolm is speaking about when it comes to the discussion about violence. It was "advocating violence" when the American revolutionaries picked up arms in defense of no taxation without representation. But its apparently "advocating violence" when a people who have been the victims of the slave trade, and then segregation, and the outrages of the KKK where men, women, children and infants have been targeted, killed and lynched and burned alive and that people finally decides to defend themselves. >
  
  Uh.  Being hyperbolic and being precise are indeed mutually exclusive things.  If someone asks me how many pens are on my desk and I say nine, I’m being precise.  If I say there are hundreds of pens, more than I’ll ever need in my life, then I’m being imprecise and hyperbolic.  
  It seems to me that you’re trying to defend his indefensible rhetoric by putting words in his mouth other than the ones he uttered. 
  And you still haven’t told me who precisely should violence be done to in response to the church bombings, which are the actual examples he uses when arguing against nonviolence.  Which white supremacists are on the receiving end for that one?   Anybody who has ever advocated white supremacy?  The then-unknown perpetrators?  How would that work?  How would violence stop the church bombings?   Would there be armed searches of anyone who got within 50 feet of any of the thousands of black churches?  That would be ridiculously impractical, so, really, what does it look like in the real world for this violence to defend against church bombings?
  It sure looks to me like it’s against the white man mentioned several times in a way that insinuates that the white man is the enemy right before advocating against non-violence. 
  And, taxation without representation isn’t what started violence in the American revolution, though asserting that does echo Malcolm X’s ignorant statements on the causes of revolutionary violence.  
  I remain convinced that Malcolm X was deeply wrong-headed and confused. >
  
  Yeah, that's pretty much it.  I prefer the second iteration of Malcolm X, but the first is still good. >
  
  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. >
  
  I think you are misunderstanding Malcolm X. I'll break it down. 
  1)Malcolm is often times witty and hyperbolic in his speeches. So the part you are talking about about the American Revolution, you're taking him way too literally there. He is pointing out that the same way how in those struggles armed self defense was justified when there was no other alternative, he is also saying blacks have a right to armed self defense when they are being murdered and killed by groups like the KKK and the government does nothing about it. 
  2)No where in those quotes and speeches does he say to attack all white people. If you read one of the quotes he says "be respectful, obey the law, but if someone lays a hand on you you send them to the cemetary". He is saying don't initiate violence. But if someone attacks you you have a right to defend yourself. And if someone attacks innocent men, women and children and babies you also have a right to pick up arms to defend them. He makes the point that in any other context that would be acceptable but in this context it is hypocritically denounced as "advocating violence". >
  
  1) I don't think I was taking him too literally.  He's pretty careful about saying that he's being precise in his revolution ramble with the whole "Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word “revolution” loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are."  He gets those characteristics wrong in terms of the American Revolution's level of bloodiness, and, really, as I said before, his facile analysis of the causes of  historical revolutions is just absurdly wrong.  
  2) If he's not advocating violence against a group of people, who is he advocating violence against?  He mentions church bombing in that rant - who is he going to go be violent against?  The perpetrators?  Is he talking about vigilante justice?  How exactly does this defense approach work in practice?  He's raging against non-violence, so that means he's pro-violence in "Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered."  Who do you think he's advocating violence against in those specific cases?  Unknown criminals who bombed churches?  Sure sounds like he's advocating it against someone, and in the preceding few lines he mentions "the white man" a whole bunch.