The general argument made by King in his letter titled “ Letter from Birmingham Jail” is that in order for Blacks to get their rights they must use non-violent resistance. More specifically, King argues that they must demand that they get their rights and he states that with time, the non-violent resistance will make situations which will force whites to negotiate. There are two distinct sides to this very complicated issue, and while King argues that non-violent resistance is the key to acquiring their rights, one can see that the counter-argument that violence can be used as a tactic to acquire their rights may also be valid under the following circumstances such as the commence of the Zapatista movement, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution.
In my view, Martin Luther King Jr. is partially correct because if one practices civil disobedience and shows that they are devoted to their cause then there voice will be heard but there are certain situations where your voice won’t be heard unless you resort to violence. Take for example, the initiation of the Zapatista movement. The Zapatistas had to take up arms against the Mexican government in order to get their voices heard. I believe that if one is assertive and demanding then achieving what one wants is possible.
Another reason that supports my position is that peaceful protesting can create situations in which people are forced to either peacefully negotiate or violently disagree. An example that supports this reasoning is the American and French revolutions. Both set of colonies wanted independence. The only way to achieve it was through violence; however at the beginning of the revolutions, the complaints were sent to the King in a letter. Martin Luther King Jr. might partially agree with my reasoning that peaceful protesting builds the ethos of someone I maintain that there are certain situations where violence is necessary
As my examples have illustrated, there comes a time when one has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document