Nathaniel bacon went outside of
the government to form militias
due to the fact that the colonial
government was not taking action
against a perceived threat. do you
think it is right to take action when
the government is not producing
the results you expect? if so, when
and how should you take action? if
not, explain why it is not right to
take matters into your own hands.
provide an example.

I do believe that taking action in response to government indifference is the right thing to do, as long as the cause a person fights for is morally just. Taking action comes in many forms, but the most effective and the most morally just way of doing so is the act of peaceful protest. As such I would disagree with how Nathaniel Bacon handled his situation since he took the phrase of "taking action into one's hands" literally. Taking action should not be about enforcing rules or disregarding the government; rather, it should be about facilitating change in the government to better not only the state but society as a whole. The best example of this would be the case of Martin Luther King Jr who passionately advocated for peaceful protest against discrimination. Additionally, one of his most prominent ideas was that action should be taken immediately rather than waiting for it to happen or "waiting for the right time." He constantly criticized the white moderate for not taking action as soon as possible and for their stance of neutrality.

to answer this question you need to explain more

a historian researching the immigration policies of the early 1900s would expect a source written today,rather than in 1910 to :

( a ) be more interested in objective data and statistics.