Non-Violence?

(1) Discuss this question in a blog post: Which is a more effective strategy in terms of social action - non-violent peacekeeping and activism (MLK, Gandhi) or aggressive peacemaking (Malcom X)? Consider both sides in your answer.

Depending on the situation, different types of protest are appropriate.  Obviously if one were looking through a humanitarian lens, non-violent protest would make the most sense.  If a body is faced with an issue that is non-violent in itself, why resort to violence to fight it?  That makes no sense.  This being said, the contrary argument also is valid.  If a body is presented with an unrelenting, violent force, pacifism can only go so far.  Unless there is some form of intervention from an outside body, pacifism will ultimately crumble under violent force.  An example of this is the late Black panther Party.  Although they were a reasonably agressive force, their pacifist rallies showed their weakness.  When met with an aggressive body (in this case the Nixon administration), the Black Panthers were infiltrated, assassinated and arrested.