EDIT: to those in the comments suddenly bringing up BLM - I didn't mention a single particular political movement. I think both sides could benefit from a huge dose of dignity tbh.
Let me explain. The entire point of non-violence was not "if we dress up and act nicely, then they will change their minds and respect us."
It was "if we dress up and act nicely, but continue to protest, they will still definitely commit violence to us, but it will expose their hypocrisy, making our moral point stronger."
Civil rights fifty years after the fact: Oh what heroes those people were. Of course they only wanted commonsensical things and surely I would have supported them if I were around back then.
That said, I do not think that MLK would condone the burning of churches, ransacking of businesses, and destruction of police stations as a means of protest.
There have always been a destructive minority associated with the civil rights movements. This does not delegitimize the movement, but neither does it legitimize the destruction.
As MLK often points out, these actions are counterproductive and polarizing.
> King told reporters that the Watts riots were “the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade” (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about “dignity and work,” rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that “the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot” (King, 19 August 1965).
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebell...
MLK was hated by many at the time. To see why, just look at the comments opposing BLM today. They are conspicuously similar in tone and content.
You present a good argument, but it falls flat before simple facts. MLK left images of crossing the bridge dressed as an accountant. BLM left images of a riot.
Anti-BLM propaganda does not even have to work hard. All it needs is amplification.
The question of violence is how often it occurs on a broader scale. I live where there were many, many protests and little violence (and often the violent ones were outsider instigators and criminals looking to create it, not civil rights protesters).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have...
If you want to continue trashing BLM, maybe look into how MLK was received in the 60s. There are a lot of people trying to amp up myths to intentionally use MLK to disparage BLM. Make sure you're not unintentionally getting caught up in that.
Many of the attacks are the same, but today there's an odd rhetoric that attacks what BLM does with an imaginary myth that protests during MLK's time were wholly peaceful (they weren't, and were also derided due to violence at the time).