I don't mean to respond to your admission with a lack of grace here, I genuinely appreciate and respect the intellectual honesty. But I don't see what I'm supposed to do with your hyperbolic claim other than expose it. I didn't turn your position into something it wasn't, I pointed out that your claim that the needle hadn't moved and that things were in the same spot they'd always been, was untrue. It feels like this one was all you.

And yes, I referred to Martin's frustration with white moderates in my first reply. But surely you see that his frustration is in no way an endorsement of violence or rioting. Rioting, of the sort we saw in France, won't get anyone their freedoms. Because it's not designed to get anyone their freedoms. As King put it, it's socially destructive and self-defeating. It's different in every single meaningful way from a revolution against tyranny or a rebellion like Nat Turner's.

So from my perspective, it seems like our disagreement is based on a failure to differentiate between different types of violence and their aims. The article refers specifically to violence that achieves nothing. Violence that isn't intended to achieve anything. Violence that harms the oppressed rather than lifts them up. And criticised that.

Even the violence you seem to approve of, like damage to police cars or the mayor's house, who do you think pays for police cars? That's right, the taxes of ordinary citizens. Who was harmed in the attack on the mayor's house? Oh yes, his wife and their infant child. Think about who this hurts and who it helps.

You might claim that police cars and the mayor's family were collateral damage in the righteous struggle against the powerful. Okay, but what exactly do you think they want this mayor of a suburb in Paris to do? What is the gain that justifies this attack on innocent people? What, in the absolute best case scenario, could any of this achieve?

I didn't talk about Malcolm X in the article. So no, there was no empathy for (or mention of) his position. Because his aims and the aims of the rioters in France (or even the BLM rioters) were completely different. The situation he was fighting was completely different. And if I'd been fighting for civil rights back then, I'd have been right with Rep. Deberry when he said that the people destroying the community weren't part of his movement.

Because while I understand Malcolm's anger, while I'm sure every single black person in America back then felt his anger, I would and do condemn anyone who thoughtlessly turns that anger against their own community.