Although violence may seem like the logical choice to settle injustice, it shouldnt be the first

choice because retaliating with violence will usually create more issues. By using violence, it usually
empowers authorities to discredit your point of actions, showing the crowd he is the right one in the
disagreement, therefore giving him The right to use violence.
While many question where does injustice come from? Many believe it is based on their
backgrounds. While many would hate blacks and refer to them as Nigger, people would understand
this because children were raised to hate and segregate from African Americans. Therefore, making
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. the people they were while reacting to the problem. Since Martin
Luther King Jr. grew up with God in his family, he grew up to be a pastor going by the laws of the Bible
and a nonviolent activist. Instead, because of the Islamic nation and going to jail for burglary, Malcolm X
grew up to be a Muslim Minster and a violent activist because he learned to face people with authority
differently.
Martin Luther King Jr. was wise to remain nonviolent because through his actions, he was able to
dismantle the evil done by the authorities through their public media and newspapers. Some may say that
violence is appropriate at times justifying it with why should people die for rights that already belong to
them. Violence shouldnt be used because if you react violently to others, especially those of authority,
youll give them the reason to react unjustly, making the blame fall on the victim.
Malcolm X did not support Martin Luther King Jr.s approach because he believed that by acting
nonviolently, people were only taught how to, remain weak and defenseless. By motivating his
followers to remain strong and fight for what is already theirs, many became confused on which side to
go on. The people had to choose to whether fight and never let anyone step on them, or just participate in
nonviolent movements to avoid any more chaos.
In the 1940s women fought for rights. Consequently, if violence was used to get what they
wanted, more rights would have been probably taken. It is through their motifs that people understand
that by using violence to fight violence, more lost will be done than gained. While many may disagree

with these who react non-confrontational, they are the ones who believe in the notion that great things
take time and that not everything can just be taken.
The best way to settle injustice is to react nonviolent, remaining serious at all time. By setting a
foot down and not quitting, a point will get across. A great example of this would be Rosa Parks and the
Montgomery bus boycott. She was aware of the consequences, but by showing the authorities how serious
she was about the situation and remaining calm the inequality of bus segregation was exposed. Through
her actions, it motivated others to react the same way by exemplifying how a point can get across without
making the situation even worse with brutality. Another great example would be the movements led by
Martin Luther King Jr. Even after being beaten and even murdered; the people kept showing they wanted
a change. By segregation was eliminated and the peoples right to vote was not taken. Civil disobedience
will always bring more attention when it is nonviolent. Without breaking any laws and accepting the
punishments, the audience is forced to see the activists as innocent and right since they get beat for no
accurate reason.
Another way to deal with injustice is by referring the enemy as a friend and using the things both
have in common. When Daryl Davis talked to the KKK member, he spoke calm and as a friend to him
while using the Bible as a reference. Since the member used the bible to deal with life also, he saw Daryl
Davis as someone who just questioned the bible.. If a person just told their enemy they are wrong, the
oppressor might just hold it against them. Instead, by showing them why they are wrong with things they
already believe in, the oppressor sees the person as someone whos just trying to help. Although Daryl
Davis was not able to get the KKK leader to quit the clan, he was able to show him why he was wrong
without even offending him. Although some may disagree with those who remain tranquil, these are the
ones who believe that to make a change in this world, everyone should treat others the way they want to
be treated. Through this, it explains to the audience that change starts with oneself.

While Martin Luther King Jr. And Malcolm X use a massive amount people to make a point,
Daryl Davis uses an approach that takes the oppressor on a one on one discussion while remaining calm.
It is through this that these three gentleman were able to show why their response to this problem was
worth imitating.