At the end of the day, though, didn't they both share the same objectives? Didn't they both fight and die for black liberty? In some sense, didn't the fact that there was a Martin make Malcolm more effective, and vice versa?
I think to ask which one of them have done the most for us when essentially we're talking about their ideals, IMO, is to trivialize them and lock they're ideals into their person and in their lifetime. I think it goes without saying that their ideals transcend their actual life-work and accomplishments while they were here.
So I see those concepts as conflicting. I understand perhaps your plea (don't trip over the term) to give credit where credit is due by acknowledging MLK and what "he" was able to accomplish but what I find problematic is the underlying assumption that that philosophy which you stated fulfilled its objective is one that should be held up as functional if not optimal for what others, myself included, may see as objectives that go beyond what "MLK accomplished".
That's what really is at issue, MBM - whether MLK philosophy can accomplish more than what we have. There seems to be, IMO, the pretense implicit in your exploration here that we have acheived "Black Liberation" via MLK. I will definitely contend we have not achieved that ultimate end and that's what accounts for the difference of opinion and reverence of the two.
I would only ask that if you feel that MLK acheived "Black Liberation" then why is it that we still have some of the fundamental challenges and questions about things that we have to acknowledge as his Dream's that are Unfulfilled? In essence, how can we pretend that MLK's objectives were accomplished when many of them have been admittedly abandoned if explored at all.
To rap it up, I defend and promote them both and feel no need to choose. I think we do ourselves a disservice by doing so. Also, one has to ask which philosophy, beyond cliches and simplistic (mis)representations of them, is the most instructive today. Not yesterday, but today. That, I think, will answer why there is a divergence and perhaps underappreciation of MLK.
I often argue that both were in favor of REPARATIONS... I think we know that "objective" stands... (And for you fake "personal responsibility" B-Con's Malcolm X - and the NOI for that matter - definitely stood for that and actually inspired poor Blacks to in fact be "responsible" but most of your fake asses will not acknowledge them because your master doesn't. )
You must also understand that there always was a competing school of thought. Again, the pretense is that MLK acheived "Black Liberation". Well, I venture to say that those of a different philosophy then just like general political ideologies now and then will hardly credit the other with "accomplishing" objectives, reserving the right to say that the other never understood the full "objective" let alone fully acheived it.
That's the issue if you ask me. It all revolves around whether merely defeating segregation and attaining some level of legal equality equates to Black Liberation. For sure, Malcolm and Martin defined those differently. You, with all due respect, have to acknowledge whose philosophy and definition you agree with then square that with what we continue to grapple with today.
How do you define Black Liberation? Has it been achieved?