This is a shameful, ahistorical, and dangerous summary of what MLK and Malcolm X stood for. MLK knew that all people needed equal rights, but also understood that Black people were historically deprived of them. He put his focus on organizing Black people in the South to that end. While he did embrace multi-racial coalitions, he never budged on Black leadership of the movement. Painting MLK as a civil rights Santa Claus for all people is shameful writing.

Your hit job on Malcolm X is even more disappointing. Malcolm was not about tearing down "white people and other privileged groups" but through exposing the hypocrisy of the American system to show why Black solidarity was needed. You then link him to Lous Farrakhan, a man who wrote that Malcolm was "worthy of death" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/05/11/farrakhan-regrets-role-in-malcolm-xs-death/f8880174-939c-40f6-b1e0-e0f79e6673e0/) after he exposed the infidelities of the Nation of Islam's leader. Your linking of Malcolm to Farrakhan is ahistorical. If you are going to use the name of a revered Black leader as a straw man, you owe it to get your facts right.

Your distortion of facts is dangerous. It communicates to white people that Black personhood cannot, and will never be, in control of their political destiny in this nation, or that it can only happen in co-operation with white people. Thinkers and activists such as Alicia Garza and Charles Blow--folks who have done the work and, unlike you, are less sloppy with facts and generalizations--offer potential solutions (https://medium.com/established-in-1865/dauntewright-102faad58452).