MLK

The first two chapters in this book give an overview of his early work. The main thing that stuck out to me was "He could feel how the church operated at the heat of community life in the South and how, in the region's rapidly growing black urban community".

I feel like this might have been a reason why MLK went into the church, he saw how it was a in to a leadership. I know that has a child you really don't know what you want to do. It was clear that he was unsure as what career path he should take.

He came from a line of Reverend but was usurer if that was his right career path. His father really tried to push this off on him.

It was not until he had the personally experience of seeing segregation that he dove into taking this career path seriously. Just knowing what I know about him I think that he realized from a young age that ministers had the ability to reach a larger number of people.

I think I just get annoyed with MLK because he is so main stream. The school system just focuses on him. They overlook so many different movements’ leaders. Nothing is wrong with him or his practices but I think too much of the spotlight is put on him.

The Good War

I really enjoyed the title of this movie. I thought it was interesting how they agreed with the war but refused to fight it. I think in a way the experience that they went through were very sociological damaging as the ones fighting in the war. They had to deal with a lot of negative attitudes from their fellow country men. It is hard to image believe for something so hard and only have a few people back you up.

The thing I most appreciated was that they were trying to make a social change. When they were placed to work at the mental institutes that witnessed first hand they horrible conditions these people were placed in.

They one thing I question though is if all wars can be fought peaceful. Is there no need for violence and war. Is there always a peaceful option. I don't full agree with the idea behind Pacifism. Is it OK to use violence if the "ends justify the means".

There are some conflicts were hands down I believe their could have been a peacefully alternative. Some war I look at and think that they needed to be fought. My biggest Question is could Hitler be brought done with just peacefully negotiations. In all honestly I think not.

My point is that no two conflicts are the same so it is hard for me to agree that violence does not have to be used. I feel like sometimes the only way to stop conflict from spreading is the use of violence. Some leaders will only give up power if militarily strategies are used against them.

I don't agree with some critics when they say Pacifism is an act of cowardliness. These few men and women who choose these roots are usually a small percent of the population. The majority of people especially in WWI and WWII had support for the war. They were applaud that these men were not serving their country in a time to of need.

I think that the Pacifism has it pro/con. Sometimes war is not the answer, it really never should be the first choice of how to end a conflict. On the other hand sometimes war is the only answer at time of need.