Was King's "DREAM" speech more destructive than positive?

Question

Just as Mark Antony's subtle and eloquent speech over Caesar's corpse incited the common people to attack fellow Romans—King's much-quoted 'peaceful' speeches.—deftly incited blacks into angry mobs by manipulating the emotions of them against whites.
How many riots and city burnings by blacks in the 1960's can be attributed to King's rantings against the sinister and oppressive white race....?

Answer 1

Do you have your civil rights leaders mixed up. Their were those who were more militant but King was totally the opposite. I believe he saved this country a lot of trouble for taking such a strong stand against violence. Any oppressed people will rebel. He was able to direct the rebellion into a nonviolent movement.

Not only did it prevent untold civil unrest, it also worked for the cause. In most conflicts you have the majority of people are fence sitters. It doesn't effect them directly so the don't take any action or even form an opinion. When they turned on their T.V.s and saw African-Americans being beaten and not even putting up a fight, they took the black man's side. If you see an even fight you are prone to root for the one who you relate to, but everybody loves an underdog.

King saved this country.

Answer 2

He hardly ranted against any race, rather a system (the government) that was oppressing others based on the color of their skin. Also, the riots only broke out AFTER he was assassinated. Violence, in that case, DID beget violence. However, his message was completely nonviolent,so where you're getting this thing about "rantings against the white race" is beyond me. Sounds like you might be trying to incite a little something of your own on here.

Answer 3

It was going to happen sooner or later - it was just a matter of the trigger, and King happened to be the person. Angry people (especially people who have a RIGHT to be angry) will eventually express that anger.