I am currently reading Stokely Carmichael's autobiography. MLK and Carmichael never had any true antagonism. Whatever tactical disagreements they may have had were hugely sensationalized by the media, and this is why there's so many people who are misinformed now. Carmichael greatly admired MLK, who was like a mentor to him. Their difference in ideology is exemplified in the part of the book that describes the March Against Fear to Canton. Apparently, during the march, MLK had been assaulted (knocked all the way down) by a police officer and Carmichael had almost blown the entire March by swinging on the cop (this was a nonviolent march, so violence of any kind, even self-defense, was a no-no). In order to prevent the march from getting jeopardized, MLK had to shout for others to neutralize Carmichael.
Later on, Carmichael and MLK were discussing what happened, and this is what he said:
"Dr. King, this is the first time. And the only reason I did was because that cracker charged into you. I know I kinda lost it then, but, Dr. King, you can tell those good white folk out there that, if they want non-violence to stay alive, they had better not touch you. Better not lay a hand on you. Because Dr King, the moment they touch you is the moment non-violence is finished."
To echo what someone said, MLK was a complicated man who put wilfully endangered his life for a decade plus just to advance a cause. Criticizing him at forty years remove, is not only disrespectful, it's also not wise, because the resources you're basing your criticism on are probably inaccurate anyway. The 60s was a turbulent time. Freedom of press was abused indiscriminately. I am only 75% through Carmichael's book and in a way I'm more confused about where he stands relative to MLK, Malcolm-X, Elijah Muhammad, Huey P Newton and other prominent civil rights figures than I was before. Someone in this thread said that he (or she) was writing a dissertation on this topic? Can you just break everyone's position down in layman's terms?