It depends on your definition of hero, I guess. The fact that Gandhi and MLK did not use force to advocate for their opinions was mature and moral. They did not give up the first time. But maybe if the cause is correct, one might have to break the stated law, and become a hero.
I'm pretty sure it's A even though those are all technically true. I would put A
The 1870's and 1880s were the height of the Gilded Age. The major issues during this period were the money supply (gold or bimetallic standard), civil service reform (spoils system) and tariffs (designed to benefit American industrialists by placing high taxes on goods imported into country)
On the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, some 200 Sioux Native Americans, led by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), occupy Wounded Knee, the site of the infamous 1890 massacre of 300 Sioux by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry. The AIM members, some of them armed, took 11 residents of the historic Oglala Sioux settlement hostage as local authorities and federal agents descended on the reservation.
No it does not. All people are flawed, all people have weaknesses, and when you place Un-questioned power into the hands of one person it amplifies bye a thousand. If one person has the smallest amount of lust as king he or she takes that person, if a person has rage as king he or she gets people people killed.