You don't need the largest protest marches in the history of the United States to send one cop to jail for 20+ years. And--if you view the protests as raising awareness rather than illustrating the existing awareness, which I think is dubious anyway, what did we get out of that awareness?

Did we get comprehensive criminal justice reform in the United States?

Did we get fewer black people losing their lives to violence? To gun violence? To police violence?

Did we even break the stranglehold unions have over policing which render cops in many jurisdictions practically immune to any sort of responsibility for actions?

We didn't.

And it wasn't even mostly because of people (cops) in power wanting to maintain their power! There was some of that, but mostly it was that there was no coherent demand for actionable change. Someone forgot to listen to Frederick Douglass, I guess.

The closest to a concession demanded from power was "defund the police", which people objected to with, "Wait, what?! What about actual crime?", to which the answer was, "You idiot, when we said 'defund the police' we didn't mean 'defund the police' but rather <long list of imprecise and sometimes conflicting ideas about how to structure social services that might reduce the need for policing, paid for in part by reduced police budgets>", to which the answer was, "Um...????".

And while it was true that white supremacists showed up at times to BLM riots to cause further trouble, it is not remotely the case that the majority of the damage (arson, looting) was perpetrated by them, and they pretty much stayed away from the peaceful protests. I don't have good statistics on interpersonal violence, though, so I suppose that might be largely due to white supremacists (gangs like Proud Boys, or otherwise). Regardless, none of the violence was particularly consequential with regard to improving society because the public sentiment was still very strong and might have been used to get something done. It was just extra tragedy and misery.

Anyway, rights for homosexuals were won without any significant violence on any side. Yes, there was a bit of vigilante intimidation-type stuff. There were a few violent counterprotests against a few pride rallies that were not an important part of winning rights because the "we're just ordinary people like you, who want the same things" argument won the day. (Indeed, a lot of the rallies were actively offputting to people with a more traditional outlook, but despite that, the "we're all the same" argument won the day. The Onion even pointed out the absurdity: https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014)

Likewise, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed on the basis of understanding and without violence on either side, and the move towards greater understanding of people was made without any significant violence involved on any side.

Efforts to pressure U.S. companies to avoid using child labor in economically impoverished countries to make cheaper products? No violence.

Finally--WW2 was not primarily about human rights aside from the right to not be conquered by totalitarian regimes, though there were some pro-rights moves in the aftermath (in response to the ghastly violations of human rights perpetrated most especially by Nazi Germany).