Yah,Yah. This entire essay makes SO MUCH SENSE, but I DID think in the movie that Erik's worldview made more sense. That Charles was just a little too naive, or...not naive, just hopeful. No offense to him but he has been brought up in a majority with (generally) less to worry about, less emotional and physical trauma. That's not to say he doesn't have his issues, everyone does, but he's white, identifies as and is biologically male, his mutation is fairly inconspicuous (despite the ramifications,and his admittedly unusual/neglected childhood), and he's had someone in his life to lean on (though that someone has her own issues). He's never had to experience the pain (except second hand) of not belonging. He's also never had to personally accept that genocide/prejudice/hatred is ingrained in the history of his entire race, his ancestry. Not having that experience would allow for a slightly sheltered and naive outlook on humans and what they are capable of. To me, Erik's viewpoint makes a lot of sense. Humans have shown themselves to be ruthless and without compassion when fearful and ignorant. What other way to get them to understand then by force? "peace marches/talks" make very little impact to those unwilling to listen. violence may not be the answer, but passivity and negotiation isn't either. (ANNNNNNNNND I'LL GET OFF MY SOAP BOX NOW)