write a paragraphs for blood sign my name and also write response for the example of my classmates

Consider and comment on some points:
1) Do you agree with Tyson that King’s assassination sealed the death of the nonviolent approach?
2) What, argues Tyson, were the three options for black men during the Jim Crow era (pp. 199-200)?
3) How is Marrow’s murder and the resultant actions a spoke in the hub of a wheel representing the national civil rights movement (pp. 218-219).
4) What was the outcome of the trial? Were you surprised?
5) Since blacks were 40% of the consumers in Oxford, how successful were their boycotts of white businesses?
6) Be sure to read: pp. 251-253.
7) Comment on Tyson’s statement that the white paternalism of his father and others like him, even if unintentional, led to them feeling that they knew what was best for the black freedom movement (pp. 266-67).
8) What role had the “bloods” played in Oxford? Why did they see to it that Marrow had “Vietnam” placed on his tombstone even though he had never actually served there (p. 268)?
9) What did you think of Teel feeling like he was the victim?
10) RE-READ FOR SURE: pp. 317-322. Now comment on Tyson’s use of Faulkner’s quote that the Past is never dead, it isn’t even the past.

and this the link

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PJgMFxbClw8C&hl=en_US&pg=GBS.PP14

Here example of my classmate and also you need to write one paragraph response to this paragraphs

I agree with Tysons statement about the King’s assassination sealing the death of the nonviolent approach of protest. It wasn’t them who fired the first shot, it was the whites. Once the whites used violence to stop their nonviolent leader, of course they would result to violence.

There were three options for black men in the Jim Crow era, one being to “adopt a docile and religious posture, excepting his racial subordination.” Another being to “play the part of the respectable Negro, superior to the poor blacks beneath him, and thereby become complicit in the racial caste system.” Lastly the third option was to “adopt the ‘criminal attitude’ of the black desperado, the ‘bad nigger’ who haunted the fearful imagination of the white south. The outcome of the trial completely shocked me. The jury found both Larry and Robert Tell not guilty for everything. It honestly made me mad when I read that because there was no way they should have gotten out of that. The defense was not even that strong and their testimonies did not even match. There were so many questions that their testimonies raised. The prosecutions on the other hand was strong and their testimonies lined up together putting the gun in Larry Teel’s hand. The boycotts of white businesses were very successful seen as not so long into the boycott is when they began to see change happen. I feel like Tyson’s statement about white paternalism leading to whites feeling they knew what was best for blacks was an accurate accusation. White liberals new there should be equality but they wanted it to be done how they felt it should be, rejecting the ideas of violence that so often happened in black resistance.

here example of response to this paragraphs

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I was also mad when I read the outcome! Although I was not completely shocked and was expecting the worst with it to begin with. This really goes to show the climate of the time and how expansive white-supremacy was in order to completely ignore the facts of this criminal case. The jury selection process also angered me. I have heard that a jury should consist of a group of “peers” but this raised the question in me, for a man who is at the top of the white supremacy system then his “peers” would be too, thus undermining the whole of justice in this instance and making change hard to come about.