Were the Black Power movement and other offshoot movements that rejected non-violence at all effective in securing any rights for black Americans in the 60s? My hazy recollection from reading Taylor Branch, David Halberstam, et al, back in the 90s is that outbreaks of violence on the part of blacks usually represented setbacks in the civil rights struggle, and were not productive; that the substantive gains were achieved primarily through non-violent means. Is this accurate?
If the argument can be made that the gains made were made in the minds of the majority of Americans, then the most effective methods were the non-violent ones used by the participants of the sit-ins, marches and voter-registration drives.
The spontaneous riots that erupted are a different thing altogether, and I don’t think they infulenced voting rights, workplace discrimination, etc. Sinc ethey were usually sparked by police brutality, they altered police procedures for a little while, until the cycle repeated itself as it continues to do.
Also, a distinction must be made between Civil Rights and Black Power. (Full disclosure: my parents were active in Civil Rights, and they and us their kids lives were repeatedly threatened so yes, I say this with an ax to grind) Human nature being what it is, the majority of Blacks supported Civil Rights, but lay low either out of generations of conditioned fear or simple apathy, while white and black activists risked everything. Then Civil Rights shifted to Black Power, after most of the major battles had been won, and whites were kicked out (many to join the anti-war movement). It was more of a victory celebration for people who hadn’t actually fought the war itself.