There was nothing in my comment to insinuate anger save maybe using the phrase "effing" as well as calling your comparison to KONY2012 "dishonest" (which it was) and your critique of Zinn "disingenuous" (which it also was).

I'll start with Zinn since I just reiterated myself.

The critique, again, is disingenuous.

Yes, Zinn included a Malcolm X quote critical of the the March on Washington, and yes, he did note that the March was embraced by Washington as a "friendly assemblage."

However, he did not "belittles Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream speech" or claim "his star was made to eclipse Malcolm X's."

From his book, freely available on the Internet

Martin Luther King's speech there thrilled 200,000 black and white Americans-"I have a dream..." It was magnificent oratory, but without the anger that many blacks felt. When John Lewis, a young Alabama-born SNCC leader, much arrested, much beaten, tried to introduce a stronger note of outrage at the meeting, he was censored by the leaders of the march, who insisted he omit certain sentences critical of the national government and urging militant action.

And he incorporated X's words to show how they "probably closer to the mood of the black community" after "as if in deliberate contempt for its [the march's] moderation, a bomb exploded in the basement of a black church in Birmingham and four girls attending a Sunday school class were killed."

X's full quote:

The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.

It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."

This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . .

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown....

The point is that the march held back on the angrier rhetoric, and that Washington elites were more inclined to support the toned-down rhetoric and non-violence of King's movement. The example of John Lewis illustrates this. His quotes X, but in doing so, he's only showing what was X's opinion of the march. Should he leave out X's opinion to instead pay fealty to the mainstream narrative on the march? Should he include all the I Have A Dream speech though most know it already? What would be the point in writing this book then?

Zinn does look at those who who were more critical of nonviolence and gives them voice (That's pretty much the point of his book), but he never fails to mention that "King's stress on love and nonviolence was powerfully effective in building a sympathetic following throughout the nation, among whites as well as blacks. "

Secondly, I again don't think saying that "prejudice is a universal part of humanity" adds anything to any discussion. It's a tautology. People are racist because people are racist. Repeating it doesn't serve to enlighten anyone about the conditions facing actual minorities in actual places around the world. It has nothing to do with the discrimination and inequality faced by minority races in the United States, today except to say "hey, we're not the only ones who do it." That's hardly an argument.

To your point that economic oppression and racial oppression are not linked, I cannot help but vehemently disagree. I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression. In fact, your initial comment seems to agree as you point to the "economic basic of slavery and oppression." What was slavery but a severe form of economic inequality? This video did not make the claim that slavery was inherently a racist institution used be whites against minorities, nor did anyone else. It only showed how slavery developed into a racist institution and how more racist institutions (Jim Crow, War on Drugs) developed from there.

Racism and economic inequality are definitely linked. In how black names get called back less. How a racial wealth gap exists and how minorities are disproportionately affected by economic downturns. How bias exists in a number of ways that affect minorities and how a history of discrimination and inequality hurts the economics of minorities. In fact, economists have looked at this for a long time.

EDIT: I read the Chapter. It's on the Internet. I linked to it in both my comments. Since that is the only chapter that has anything to do with what we're talking about, that's all I'd have needed to read to discuss it with you. You having "read the book" doesn't dismiss my criticisms of your reading, since I have read the same part we are referring to.

I will, again, reiterate that I made no claims that "white masters" conspire together to keep blacks down because they don't like black people. And that I do not believe this video did either. What I did claim is that the upper class is mostly white and there are institutional problems that disproportionately affect black people and other minorities. Institutional racism is a thing and it does benefit the mostly white elites that hold most the political, economic, and social power.

From my original reply.

Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more.

He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky.

Your "broad point" again had little to nothing to do with the discussion. Slavery is not a racist institution inherently. But, again, slavery as practiced in the US in the 18th, 19th Century was a racist institution and it bred new ones, including Jim Crow and the War on Drugs. Interpersonal racism does not matter here. A non-racist slaveholder does not make the institution of slavery no longer institutionally racist when it continues to be applied disproportionately to black people. Same as the other two.

Kind of an abuse of the mute function. You could have just stopped replying. You're the one getting defensive here and before. I can call something disingenuous and dishonest without malice.

Whatever helps you sleep.

Congratulations, you're now joined with Grendel in the illustrious club of People Who Have Muted Me.