# data[].attributes.body
In the book,

# data[].attributes.body
Malcom X has a very strong point of view on the civil rights and reality of minorities in America; he knows exactly how brutal people can be, whereas the girl and the boy, from Emperor, do not. He believes that "[b]eing born here in America doesn’t make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn’t need any legislation; you wouldn’t need any amendments to the Constitution." I think that he is far from naiive and far from clueless about the way the government can define a group of people, and convince others to think the same, and I think that if they had the same knowledge as him, her journey would have been less confusing in the book.

# data[].attributes.headline
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.subject
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.body
Cesar Chavez  would've handled civil disobedience by using a non-violence strategical way: a group that can stand up and fight for one's right.

# data[].attributes.headline
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.subject
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.body
MLK would've handled civil disobedience by  creating a speech that justifies how non-violence should be controlled. Also leading up to that, he would've led protests and marches to stand up and fight against civil disobedience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.subject
Handling Consequences of Civil Disobedience

# data[].attributes.body
Malcolm X would have handled civil disobedience by creating a speech which has two things that both compare and contrast and has one big moral to what he's trying to say about the civil disobedience act. Evidence: He talks about "the ballot or the bullet", which mainly shows that the Africans Americans have to choose one thing .

# data[].attributes.body
2.) Chavez was all about peace - peaceful protests and boycotts will allow them to be taken seriously and heard. Because of boycotts against grapes and such, he allowed unions to be formed.

# data[].attributes.body
2.) They should break the law, but be willing to accept consequences. Even from jail he continued to protest and explain why he was doing what he was doing.

# data[].attributes.body
2.) Ready to fight - Malcolm X didn't necessarily preach violence, but it was something that he was ready to use, as seen in "the ballot or the bullet."

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Chavez would agree with Dr. King in his stance on unjust laws because near the beginning he references him multiple times in praising his non-violent strategies, so it would make sense if they had the same views on just and unjust laws.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Dr. King, a just law is one that is in line with the moral law or law of God. An unjust law  is one that is against a minority or one that those effected had no input in the law's creation.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Malcolm X thinks unjust laws are ones that are meant to oppress "non-Americans" like the african-americans.

# data[].attributes.body
Use multiple "posts" to address each of the questions. This will make it easier to have more specific connections after you've gathered all of the evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Use the "connection" feature to highlight similarities between different philosophies.

# data[].attributes.body
Make sure you address each of the following questions for Thoreau, King, and X.  Provide evidence for each section.

1. What makes a law just and unjust?

2. How should one respond to unjust laws?

3. How should one handle the consequences of civil disobedience?

4. How might this philosophy have affected any of the characters in When the Emperor Was Divine?