The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere.
Polite complaints, peaceful demonstrations, and rioting is what you do in order to get handouts from a king or slave owner. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, all those actions are meaningless. What matters in a democracy is voting, running for office, and convicing your fellow citizens.
They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.
Oh, rioting certainly works for the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world: it furnishes them with money and power. For the people of Ferguson, it just means poverty and marginalization.
If the people of Ferguson don't like their "white establishment", they can vote them out every couple of years. But apparently, they have been satisfied enough with their white establishment that they didn't bother to do so.
That's what they teach in high school civics classes. I can see that you have never actually tried that out with an unpopular cause in the real world.
I can also see that your high school didn't teach you about the civil rights movement in the South during the 1960s. When black people tried to vote, they were turned away, and if they made too much trouble, they were killed. Southern racists had many clever ways of disqualifying blacks from voting, such as "Literacy tests," which they could claim were fair. If you're not literate, you can't vote, right?
Now the racists have other ways of preventing black people from voting, such as requiring photo ID cards (where in the original text of the Constitution does it say that you have to show a photo ID to vote?), gerrymandered districts, and excluding people convicted of committing a crime, all of which sound reasonable until you look at the facts.
Ferguson does have a low black voting rate, but that's because the white establishment uses these techniques to prevent them from voting.
The fairy tale about the civil rights movement that we recite on Martin Luther King's birthday is that it was a nonviolent movement and they just marched and protested and registered voters until they finally won America over.
The truth, as described for example in Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, is that JFK just wanted the demonstrators to go away, after he gave them some token concessions. Zinn quotes the memoirs of Ted Sorenson, who was standing next to Kennedy during the civil rights demonstrations in Washington and during Kennedy's decisions on what to do about civil rights. It turns out that Malcom X was right. It turns out that JFK sided with MLK and the peaceful, nonviolent demonstrators, because Malcom X and the Black Panthers were getting popular and telling black people to get guns.
And, if J. Edgar Hoover and the investigators of the Mississippi Un-American Activities Committee can be believed, another group that was contributed to the success of the civil rights movement was the Communist Party, who you probably dislike even more than Sharpton and Jackson. According to Sorenson, Kennedy was worried that the Communists were using the civil rights movement to embarass America among the black people in the world, and the Communists, along with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, drove Kennedy to action.
If you followed the history of the civil rights movement year by year, you'd see that politicians like JFK, and especially local politicians, were ignoring them, obstructing them, not letting them vote, and sometimes killing them. Progress usually came in response to riots. When black people started getting guns, the white establishment went frantic. As Huey Newton said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
I think you should take a black studies course. And read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.