All categories

3 years ago

When he suggested that change should be brought about “by any means necessary,” Malcolm X was

2 answers:

4 0

When he suggested that change should be brought about “by any means necessary,” Malcolm X was stating violence would be necessary to achieve civil rights goals.

malfutka [58]3 years ago

4 0

The correct answer is that Malcolm X was stating violence would be needed to achieve civil rights goals.

Malcolm X defended the right of self-preservation, he defended that African Americans had the right to self-defense and if this means violence, he defended it. He said that the American government has been unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of African Americans and they should protect themselves. He also said, “tactics based on morality can only succeed when you are dealing with basically moral people or moral system.”

You might be interested in

What attitudes did most Progressives hold about

o-na [289]

Answer:

Well bad attutudes i suppose

5 0

3 years ago

Ano ang nasa isip mo kung makaka rinig ka ng salitang america iguhit at ipaliwanag sa iyong sagutang papel

9966 [12]

Answer:

<h3> <em>"Flag of America"</em></h3>

Explanation:

Dahil sa tuwing naririnig ko ang salitang "America" ito ang unang pumapasok sa aking isipan at dahil ito ang sumisimbolo sa America kaya't ito ang pumapasok sa aking isipan

I hope it helps to you a lot and if you are satisfied with my answer please mark it as brainliest (if my answer is right)... Thank You!

4 0

3 years ago

What is a claim I can make about slavery in the United States

valentinak56 [21]

Answer:

that its f.u.k up............>:(

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

Like many cities in the South, Atlanta was poorly prepared to meet the emergency of the Great Depression. Which statement best d

Gala2k [10]

Answer:

I would say either A or D

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

The founding Fathers wanted to ensure that no one faction of the population could choose the president. How does the Supreme Cou

vaieri [72.5K]

Answer:

The best answer to the question: How does the Supreme Court in the 2000 election challenge the original intent? Would be, A: Because the Supreme Court could be considered a faction.

Explanation:

Although essentially the Judicial branch was designed to become a neutral power, without any leanings towards a particular party, or a particular form of government, in the 2000 election, this line was crossed and many Americans started believing that this ideal of neutrality on the part of the Supreme Court, was crossed. Originally, the Court is supposed to become an interpreter of the Law, the U.S Constitution and other legislation, that impacts the outcomes of different activities in American life.

In the 2000 election, the Court had to intervene when a lawsuit was presented to challenge the election of George W. Bush as President, in the case Bush vs. Gore. The point was that in Florida´s election, it seemed that there had been a miscount of votes, which favored Bush, over Gore.

Although the initial suit was taken up by the Florida Supreme Court, the matter reached all the way to the U.S Supreme Court, and they stepped in, on account of supposed violations to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Arguing protection of Floridian voters´ rights, the Court stopped the counting and made a decision. In this form, they favored Bush, over Gore, and thus were considered to have become partisan. Something the Founding Fathers had not intended to happen when they Framed the Constitution. They became a faction at that point which highly favored Bush and his party, by basically giving him the Presidency.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers