During the civil rights movement, martin luther king, jr. and other leaders insisted upon avoiding violence in the pursuit of equality. why do you think the nonviolent approach was used instead of allowing for violence in achieving the movement's goals?

Martin Luther King Jr. and other Civil Rights Movement leaders - although not all of them - were firmly committed to nonviolence as a way to resist, push for and effectively achieve social change, and they rejected the way revolutions in the past had occurred (involving hate and violence), finding this way impractical in a multiracial society. Instead, they promoted a series of nonviolent, yet powerful and meaningful, actions to achieve legal equality, such as marches, protests, and civil disobedience.  

-The Non-Violent approach could earn sympathy from the public if violence was used against those in the movement.

-There was a moral aspect to avoiding the use of

violence

-A Violent approach may turn people against the civil rights movement.

explanation:

i think it is in quadrant 4.

the five year plans were part of a command economy. there was little choice in what would be emphasized for the current 5 year period.

the answer to democracy or totalitarianism is a bit harder. in stalin's time, russia was totalitarian. now that's not entirely true. putin has moved towards at least the boundary.