I couldn't get past the 4th example of "non-violence" without laughing at how wildly revisionist they are. While each of these had non-violent components, none of them would have succeeded without violence. The housing rights act wasn't passed until literally every city was on fire.

Here's a great book detailing the experiences that lead civil rights leaders to understand the importance of a real, credible threat for any "non-violent" component to be effective..

The British gave up their occupation of India after a decades-long nonviolent struggle by the Indian population led by Mohandas Gandhi.

The Danes, Norwegians and other peoples in Europe used civil resistance against Nazi invasion during World War II, raising the costs to Germany of its occupation of these nations, helping to strengthen the spirit and cohesion of their people, and saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Berlin to Copenhagen to Paris and elsewhere.

Labor movements around the world have consistently used tactics of civil resistance to win concessions for workers throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

African Americans used civil resistance in their struggle to dissolve segregation in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

Wait, are you using multiple accounts to support your argument? The OP comment is under a different username but you just responded to that person as if you made that initial content presenting the data.

And reminder that Lemmy shows edit history.

That's the exact same link I already read. Did you mean to send me something else? There was a link titled "award-winning research" to a $27 book. I wasn't able to find any further data sources beyond the provided anecdotes. Did I miss something?

(Minor edit for clarity.)