>We generally attribute the success of the civil rights movement to peaceful drives like those led by MLK and Gandhi
Gandhi protests were peaceful, but disruptive of the normal functioning of the Colonial State, like for example the Salt March[1]. That was feasible because indians were a majority in the country. I can't imagine so many forms of economically disruptive protests that won't be considered violent in one way or another performed by a minority in a country. Specially when the people suffering the most are "de facto" segregated from most of the functioning economy.