The question says nothing about holding office. Holding an office is not a prerequisite of becoming a world leader. Plenty of people have been considered world leaders and have become extremely influential without ever being elected to, or even running for, political office.
Nope. You can be a leader in your field. You can be influential. You can be famous. You can be powerful. The definition of "world leader" is, was, and will be until the average IQ drops at least 12 more points, a head of state or head of government.
But, just so that I can understand your point of view, who do you think is a world leader who is not a president, prime minister, premier, governor, chancellor, taoiseach, pope, king, queen, prince, grand duke, grand duchess, or emir? (Please don't say Kim Kardashian. Please don't say Kim Kardashian.)
Yeah you can find faults in any quote when dissected, but here's quite obvious he meant more or less spontaneous, grassroots riots, not state-organized violence.
He also was not advocating or justifying riots in that speech. Later in the same conversation, he says "riots are self-defeating and socially destructive" and reiterates that non-violence is the only way. He was more offering an explanation than a defense. If you listen to the conversation, he is vehemently anti-riot in any context.
I had to look up the story of how his name changed. I knew his father was inspired by Martin Luther, but didn't realize it happened after he was already given another name. Updated his birth certificate at age 28, apparently!
The "not" comes before the quote excerpt: "...not be judged by the color of their skin..." (Although it would be helpful to include more of the quote, for clarity.)
While I am not denying its relevance, identifying who King's assassin was is information worth forgetting... I think the city where he was killed is good enough.
I am old enough to remember when he was killed, and with all the news about it at the time I was very surprised when I couldn't recall the name of his killer. I was expecting a question about the name of the motel where he was killed - The Lorraine Motel. No idea why I could remember that but not the name of his assassin.
Nothing about him plagiarizing his speech? Or his abuse of dozens of prostitutes? Or giving his wife STDs? Or his affiliation with communism and foreign adversaries of the United States?
• Barely true. It was only the ending (which he'd not prepared beforehand and performed spontaneously), and it's barely plagiarism anyways.
• That is an obscene exaggeration of a widely condemned interpretation of a single hand-written addendum (containing unprovable accusations) to a single FBI file.
• I can find no reference to this (not even in a trash article).
• He had two associates with previous ties to the American Communist party a decade prior, but both had long since left it behind by their SCLC days. Regardless, if you do literally any reading about it (from a real source), it will be clear that everyone involved knew King wasn't tied to Communism and that they were simply worried J. Edgar Hoover would twist the truth.
Hoover had an obsession with discrediting King bordering on the pathological. While King was far from perfect, most of the libelous drivel one reads about him on the scummy parts of the Internet are just the impotent echoes of that obsession.
I think "Black Power leader," or something along those lines, would be a better descriptor for Malcolm X than "civil rights leader." Not all active Black people at the time were focused on the very distinct targets of civil rights equality and ending of legal segregation.
But, just so that I can understand your point of view, who do you think is a world leader who is not a president, prime minister, premier, governor, chancellor, taoiseach, pope, king, queen, prince, grand duke, grand duchess, or emir? (Please don't say Kim Kardashian. Please don't say Kim Kardashian.)
But perhaps, to steal the language of Seinfeld, slogans are like gossamer, and one doesn't dissect gossamer.
• That is an obscene exaggeration of a widely condemned interpretation of a single hand-written addendum (containing unprovable accusations) to a single FBI file.
• I can find no reference to this (not even in a trash article).
• He had two associates with previous ties to the American Communist party a decade prior, but both had long since left it behind by their SCLC days. Regardless, if you do literally any reading about it (from a real source), it will be clear that everyone involved knew King wasn't tied to Communism and that they were simply worried J. Edgar Hoover would twist the truth.
Hoover had an obsession with discrediting King bordering on the pathological. While King was far from perfect, most of the libelous drivel one reads about him on the scummy parts of the Internet are just the impotent echoes of that obsession.