If you read it you would know thats not the kind of action Malcolm was advocating.
So which is it? Is Malcolm X, in your view, saying that civil unrest caused the Civil Rights Act, or is he saying that it was insufficient to cause the Civil Rights Act?
Or, most likely, are you living in an alternate reality of your own fantasy wherein there was a revolution that caused the Civil Rights Act after overthrowing Congress?
The answer from you, of course, I realize full well will be “Whatever I need to say to continue upholding my asinine position with no relation to reality.”
For crying out loud. Read or listen to the speech. It is such a simple argument I assumed someone who is into history would understand it by now.
His argument is there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. He directly links the violent protests in several towns to the passage of the civil rights bill. I have no idea where you are getting overthrowing congress.
So if you disagree with that can you tell me why the civil rights act was passed when it was passed. There is no gotcha or anything here. Im genuinely curious your reasoning.
His argument is there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.
Which is not only asinine and disproven by historical fact, but utterly irrelevant to the issue of MLK Jr., who explicitly presented his movement as the alternative to brewing violence, as shown by the quote on riots that you dismissed and are now reversing your position on.
I have no idea where you are getting overthrowing congress.
So which is it? Is Malcolm X, in your view, saying that civil unrest caused the Civil Rights Act, or is he saying that it was insufficient to cause the Civil Rights Act?
Or, most likely, are you living in an alternate reality of your own fantasy wherein there was a revolution that caused the Civil Rights Act after overthrowing Congress?
The answer from you, of course, I realize full well will be “Whatever I need to say to continue upholding my asinine position with no relation to reality.”
For crying out loud. Read or listen to the speech. It is such a simple argument I assumed someone who is into history would understand it by now.
His argument is there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. He directly links the violent protests in several towns to the passage of the civil rights bill. I have no idea where you are getting overthrowing congress.
So if you disagree with that can you tell me why the civil rights act was passed when it was passed. There is no gotcha or anything here. Im genuinely curious your reasoning.
Which is not only asinine and disproven by historical fact, but utterly irrelevant to the issue of MLK Jr., who explicitly presented his movement as the alternative to brewing violence, as shown by the quote on riots that you dismissed and are now reversing your position on.
What the fuck do you think a revolution is.