Dr. King's nonviolent civil disobedience was successful in bringing about significant civil rights changes, including the end of segregation and the passage of the Voting Rights Act. His approach emphasized nonviolence and peaceful protest, which helped to garner sympathy and support from the broader public.
Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta's nonviolent civil disobedience was also successful in bringing about significant changes for farmworkers, including higher wages and better working conditions. Their approach emphasized nonviolence and peaceful protest, which helped to bring attention to the plight of farmworkers and build support for their cause.
Malcolm X's approach of "by any means necessary" was more confrontational and advocated for self-defense and direct action. While his approach may have resonated with some, it did not have the same level of broad-based support as Dr. King's nonviolent approach.
The Black Panther Party's armed self-defense was also confrontational and emphasized direct action. While their approach did help to bring attention to police brutality and other issues faced by Black communities, their use of violence and armed self-defense ultimately led to their downfall and did not bring about the lasting social, economic, and political changes they sought.
In terms of which approach would be most successful in bringing about civil rights changes, it is difficult to say definitively as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, history has shown that nonviolent civil disobedience, as exemplified by Dr. King and Chavez/Huerta, has been more successful in bringing about lasting change and building broad-based support.
In terms of sacrifice, all civil rights movements require sacrifices from their members, whether it is risking physical harm, incarceration, or social and economic consequences. The speed and longevity of change would also depend on various factors, including the strength and dedication of the movement, the level of opposition faced, and the broader social and political context.
Ultimately, the choice of which group to join would depend on individual beliefs, values, and circumstances. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the most effective approach may vary depending on the specific situation and context.