Pacifism as Pathology - part II (new topic)

Since I went on a bit of a rant on a section of this, I thought I would focus on another section for a different blog.
In a later section, he mentions that the black panthers were the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement, and criticizes Gandhi's followers for allowing themselves to be beaten. I disagree with his statements, mostly because he has little evidence to back up his claims, but also because of the information that I have acquired in this class. Gandhi is one of the most famous non-violent activists. His name springs to mind when thinking of nonviolence. Obviously what he did had a huge affect on the state of affairs in India, because in the West he is a popular figure and it has raised an enormous amount of awareness about the situation there. Not to mention what good his resistance did at the time of it. It is very far from ineffective.
On the topic of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King and his organizations are the most well known because they made an enormous difference. There was no lack of strategy; different activists used economic boycotts as well as simple passive resistance. They also used active resistance with sit ins and pickets. The Black Panthers are more widely frowned upon because of their escalation (to a certain extent) of the conflict. Violence escalates conflict, non-violence raises awareness and thus de-escalates conflict. This is a fact. There is no desputing it. Although there are pros and cons to both sides, you simply cannot argue that the non-violent resistance during the Civil Rights movement was ineffective. It is absurd.