Easy to say that now.

Back then the spread of Communism was real and viewed as a threat to Western democracy.

The Americans were incredibly naive regarding Vietnam, they learned absolutely nothing from the French.

The lessons still have not been learned, if you are going to fight a war then fight it. Not the half arsed attempts at reducing "Collateral Damage" which inevitably just draws things out

Or more realistically considered a valid reason to implement an equally unacceptable, and highly profitable approach to foreign policy. Communism was never a threat to Western Democracy except in terms of WWIII.

Whilst socialist groups had influence, the communist party in the UK never really had much in membership, even at the height of its influence. But it did allow for the UK, for example, to act against the growing Labour movement and trade unionism, by exaggerating the threat of Communist Infiltrators (the soviets in terms of espionage, largely stayed clear of the CPGB and Trade Unions).

What effectively was being waged was a proxy war for markets by the soviet union and the west (essentially with both sides exploiting those factions for profit and trade - especially of arms) - and ultimately justified propping up (read massively exploiting) numerous cruel and brutal dictatorships (and installing cruel and brutal dictatorships).

None of the major Western nation were overthrown by communism, or really all that affected by it, but their capacity to control third world countries and exploit them was greatly enhanced in that post-Empire world.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Without the alternative groups like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam, NACAP would never have been seen as an acceptable face of civil rights movement. The US state was effectively backed into a corner, and it was very clear when MLK was murdered, just exactly what the alternative was going to go.

Its very easy to demand that people be civilised in the face of brutality and cruelty. The shame of the US government, is that it allowed that cruelty to carry on for so long. Its only really when the real alternative to the Peaceful protesters (who were being beaten, murdered, bitten, tortured and raped) was civil war, that the situation really started to change.

I genuinely think, that when the authorities start murdering people, or getting away with murdering people, then people are entirely right to fight back. Its self defence (the Black Panther Party for Self Defence armed themselves, and acted totally within the law, in response to the Los Angles Police Departments racist police force, and its actions. The response to their peaceful, legal protest, was to change the laws not to investigate the LAPD, with Regan implementing restrictive Gun Legislation with the support of the NRA).

Especially when groups like the Black Panthers, NAACAP etc were starting to mix with the SDS Party etc.

But that's not the point, it highlighted the hypocracy, that he couldn't necessarily get into a half decent school, or career in the US, but he was expected to go and kill its enemies for them. The point is that those black men were fighting for a country that didn't regard them as even equal citizens.

Quite agree.

Quite untrue, he regarded them as snakes until he got to know them to be otherwise. Quite common in black American of the time, not to trust that white people are good folk. That kind of mistake could get a man killed.

Its worth remembering that Ali/Clay was hardly a well educated man. He was a working class boxer, who if he hadn't been good at boxing, had no real prospects because of his race and social class.

I think its difficult to judge someone a good person or bad person. They're just people, they're flawed and Ali is as flawed as the world he found himself in. The difference, is that he used his success and position, to make that stand and to make those objections known.

And that is what people respect, people who see something that is wrong in their world, and make that stand, often at personal sacrifice and loss.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I clearly agree with the thrust of your argument but using this sort of phrase isn't too helpful.

You are either racist or not.

You can stop being racist on a philosophical level or choose to associate with other "races" it it serves your purpose but I don't believe we can afford such generosity as to say you aren't very racist because you just happen to be a particular individual or from a particular background.

Would you say that a member of the BNP was not very racist because he had a couple of Black friends or worked for a black boss?

We have to be even handed if we wish to want to retain the credibility of equality.

It is reasonable to say that it is not surprising that he was racist toward white people because of the discrimination that existed at the time. It is a totally different argument to say that he "wasn't very racist" because he associated with whites or that at the same time supported and voiced racist ideology.

By that reckoning one could argue that someone is not very racist to dislike black people because in their town more street crime is committed by black people than is proportionate to the population.

You can have one way of thinking or the other but not both.
You can perhaps argue that racism is understandable in certain circumstances but not acceptable, unless it is acceptable for all.
Fighting oppression, suppression or segregation does not have to involve racism. Non whites do all three to each other all over the world. The fact that most ruling class Americans happened to be white is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Ali's slave ancestors were probably sold to white slave traders by black slave traders.
If we are going to uphold ideologies then you have to be be true to them no matter what or they lose credibility.