Dallas's English Blog

King writes, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. This statement could not hold any more true- one incident of injustice is the foundation for an uncontrollable growth of injustice. While there’s more than one way to interpret King’s writing, the core of it is that if one person’s commits an injustice, it sets a pattern for others to follow. For example, if a person figures out how to rob a bank, then he has the ability to share how he did it, leading others to rob a bank.
Perhaps that analogy was too base; it could be interpreted on a different level. One injustice proves that the current system of enforcement is not fool proof; there is the chance for another injustice to occur. If there’s a possibility for an act to happen, then there will be someone who chooses to act (either responsibly or irresponsibly). King implies that the only way to completely abolish injustice is have it be non-existent. This statement, combined with King’s reasoning, compels the reader to agree with him. Some may state that King acts hypocritically, as he himself was an instigator of “injustice” in the form of civil unrest or disobedience. However, this accusation is countered when King said, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over it’s injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law”. To defend his position, King points out that no injustice is done by protesting an unjust law, for the unjust law is the source of the injustice.
Voting is a prominent example of injustice threatening universal justice. Since Blacks did not hold the right to vote, it gave the government the right to withhold this privilege from other people (specifically women). In this sense, one injustice was a viable threat that succeeded in hampering justice everywhere. King is an opponent of this exact example: he believes that one incident can trigger many more.
King writes, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. This statement could not hold any more true- one incident of injustice is the foundation for an uncontrollable growth of injustice. While there’s more than one way to interpret King’s writing, the core of it is that if one person’s commits an injustice, it sets a pattern for others to follow. For example, if a person figures out how to rob a bank, then he has the ability to share how he did it, leading others to rob a bank.
Perhaps that analogy was too base; it could be interpreted on a different level. One injustice proves that the current system of enforcement is not fool proof; there is the chance for another injustice to occur. If there’s a possibility for an act to happen, then there will be someone who chooses to act (either responsibly or irresponsibly). King implies that the only way to completely abolish injustice is have it be non-existent. This statement, combined with King’s reasoning, compels the reader to agree with him. Some may state that King acts hypocritically, as he himself was an instigator of “injustice” in the form of civil unrest or disobedience. However, this accusation is countered when King said, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over it’s injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law”. To defend his position, King points out that no injustice is done by protesting an unjust law, for the unjust law is the source of the injustice.
Voting is a prominent example of injustice threatening universal justice. Since Blacks did not hold the right to vote, it gave the government the right to withhold this privilege from other people (specifically women). In this sense, one injustice was a viable threat that succeeded in hampering justice everywhere. King is an opponent of this exact example: he believes that one incident can trigger many more.
One current example of this belief is the case of American women being “trapped” in Iran due to their husband’s religious constraints. Women have no rights in Iran, and are under total subjugation of their husbands. Therefore, this injustice of withholding freedom implies and promotes the idea that one person can be dominate over another; one may essentially “own” the rights of another.
For another example, we can recall the “rounding up” of Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. Due to injustice by a group of Japanese people, the justice of all Japanese, including the innocents of the war and those in America, was threatened and violated.
In King’s personal experience, however, the case is slightly different. He attempted to achieve justice through all the legal and normal pathways; when this proved to get him nowhere, he turned to peaceful protest. Because a few Blacks were discriminated against, it opened up the door for racial intolerance to be rampant. People did not see the wrong in “colored” and “white” areas, because throughout the development of injustice, it became the norm to be intolerant. In this way, injustice spread like an unknown cancer, finally developing enough to where only drastic action could cure it.
Unjust laws are made when those who make them feel threatened, or are made tailored to only their best interest. King’s writing shows outright disdain for not only the injustice of an unjust law, but for injustice anywhere. The solution he describes is not an easy one, but a logical and thought out one: to live in a just and fair society, we cannot allow any injustice to occur.
For another example, we can recall the “rounding up” of Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. Due to injustice by a group of Japanese people, the justice of all Japanese, including the innocents of the war and those in America, was threatened and violated.
In King’s personal experience, however, the case is slightly different. He attempted to achieve justice through all the legal and normal pathways; when this proved to get him nowhere, he turned to peaceful protest. Because a few Blacks were discriminated against, it opened up the door for racial intolerance to be rampant. People did not see the wrong in “colored” and “white” areas, because throughout the development of injustice, it became the norm to be intolerant. In this way, injustice spread like an unknown cancer, finally developing enough to where only drastic action could cure it.
Unjust laws are made when those who make them feel threatened, or are made tailored to only their best interest. King’s writing shows outright disdain for not only the injustice of an unjust law, but for injustice anywhere. The solution he describes is not an easy one, but a logical and thought out one: to live in a just and fair society, we cannot allow any injustice to occur.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Edublogs.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

Also, please consider becoming an Edublogs Supporter – you can remove ads from yours and other blogs, upload up to 5GB or audio, video and every other sort of content and access great features under your ‘Plugins’ menu.

Supporters are what keeps Edublogs running and providing free blogs for education, so give it a go today

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our getting started with Edublogs guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.

And finally, if you like Edublogs but want to be able to simply create, administer, control and manage hundreds of student and teacher blogs at your school or college, check out Edublogs Campus… it’s like Edublogs in a box, all for you.

Thanks again for signing up with Edublogs!