There have been many great civil rights activists in our history, fighting against the oppression of blacks. I think Martin Luther King Jr. said it best in his essay "Three Ways of Responding to Oppression". Mr. King believed the best defense and offense against oppression was the way of nonviolent resistance; "seeking to reconcile the truths of two opposites-acquiescence and violence-while avoiding the extremes and immoralities of both".
             Mr. King stated that there are three characteristic ways oppressed people deal with their oppression, one way is acquiescence: the oppressed resign themselves to their doom. They adjust themselves to oppression and become conditioned to it. Some of the oppressed prefer to remain oppressed; it's just easier to accept it than to resist it. Mr. King believed that this was not the way out, to passively accept an unjust system is to cooperate with that system. I can see how this type of negative thinking gets nothing accomplished for the oppressed; it tells the oppressors that his actions are morally right.
             A second way that the oppressed sometimes deal with oppression as stated by Mr. King, is to resort to physical violence and hatred. Mr. King believed that violence often brings about momentary results and does not solve any social problems, but merely creates new and more complicated ones. He believed, the saying; "an eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. Mr. King stated; "violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral". It is impractical because it ends in destruction for all, and
             immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. He believed that giving into violence in the struggle for freedom was leaving a legacy for future generations of endless and meaningless chaos. I don't believe that violence is ever the answer either, although sometimes necessary, but usually avoidable.
             ...