3 ms·
It's only by the political campaigning of abolitionists that there was enough support for the Civil War in the North. There were plenty of non-slave owners who
by KMag 6y ago
It's only by the political campaigning of abolitionists that there was enough support for the Civil War in the North. There were plenty of non-slave owners who needed to be convinced of the evils of slavery. Dr. King was so much more effective than Malcolm X because he didn't declare those yet-to-be-convinced to be his enemies.
Once you declare everyone who doesn't agree with you an enemy, they stop listening to you, and you've given up on campaigning. This only makes sense if you've given up on convincing people who aren't already convinced.
If you think the time for convincing is over and dialogue has failed, then you seem to be out of non-violent options. Are you raising an armed militia to raid prisons and free non-violent drug offenders?
If dialogue has been dismissed, and you're not advocating violence, what options are there beyond impotently yelling into the echo chamber?
Edit: also, there's a difference between picking a side and declaring enemies.
Edit 2: The great-grand-sibling by cgriswald put it much more eloquently.
- TeaDrunk 6y agoAt the same time, I find it difficult to parse this with the knowledge that Dr King also repeatedly stated disappointment with white moderates and also later in life fame to support and understand violence against property in response to police brutality. But these are generally ignored when contrasting him with Malcom X. I’ve even heard theories that King could not be effective without the threat represented by Malcom X.