Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea

Highly readable book on an often and crucial concept - nonviolence. Written with wit and Wisdom

I learned an immense amount about non-violence from this book. Of course, we read about Ghandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. But the vast majority of the time is spent on less famed examples. We learn of non-violent resistance in Eastern Europe during the Cold War and under Nazi occupation during World War II. We learn of a non-violent army led by Abdul Ghaffar Khan in India that allowed themselves to be mowed down by the British with nary a violent move, leading to 80,000 more joining their number (149-150). Kurlansky explores the history of justification for war within the Christian church (and the strong-willed dissidents). He also examines non-violent alternatives to the actions chosen by wars that are often defended: World War II, the American Revolution, the American Civil War. I occasionally felt my interest flag, but only briefly. The book is accessible and generally well paced. Two complaints: 1. It seems clear that Kurlansky is a fan of non-violence. That is not in and of itself problematic; in fact, I am quite sympathetic. However, occasionally it feels like he isn't exploring the full picture. For example, he cites a peaceful demonstration before the American Revolution, refusing to let judges chosen by the Crown to be seated in their courthouses, as an example of a non-violent victory: Yet he admits that the colonists had weapons, although they didn't use them. The threat of violence is not non-violence. I admit, though, that I am forgiving of his occasional inconsistency: This is a book demonstrating possibilities more than proving a point. 2. Euro centricity. There is time spent on Latin America and Asia (not much on Africa as I recall) but the lion's share is spent on North America and Europe, and the other areas are often touching those (i.e., India getting rid of the British). I would have enjoyed seeing more of non-violence in other parts of the world independent of European and American interactions. But you can't do it all in a short book. And at the end, we get 25 lessons that sum it all up, such as: 1.There is no proactive word for nonviolence. 2.Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them. 3.Practitioners of non-violence 4.Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings. And so on. Richard Dreyfuss narrates the unabridged audiobook; he barks a bit, but this is definitely better than watching Mr Holland's Opus. I recommend it (the book, not the Opus). I learned a great deal and largely enjoyed it.

I picked up this book because I have always been uncomfortable with violence and war in general. I felt that WWII was a just war, for example, but current events less so. Kurlansky does a great job of detailing the futile history of war, and the potent history of nonviolence. He provides persuasive arguments for how and why nonviolence works. This is much more than Gandhi and MLK fighting for independence or equal rights... nonviolence works in nearly every situation, and Kurlansky states that it is inevitable that we as humans realize someday how poorly violence has worked, and try other options. One provocative notion in the book is that once a state officially supports a religion, that religion is corrupted. He cites Constantine's embrace of Christianity with making that formerly nonviolent faith into one that supports war to maintain peace. He also cites Islam as a faith that is about peace, but has been changed due to its status as the official state religion in some nations. An excellent conversation starter! EDIT: I met the author at a book signing on the National Mall. He said he was glad to hear I assigned this book to my students, "It's the book I would most like students to read."

I picked up this book because I have always been uncomfortable with violence and war in general. I felt that WWII was a just war, for example, but current events less so. Kurlansky does a great job of detailing the futile history of war, and the potent history of nonviolence. He provides persuasive arguments for how and why nonviolence works. This is much more than Gandhi and MLK fighting for independence or equal rights... nonviolence works in nearly every situation, and Kurlansky states that it is inevitable that we as humans realize someday how poorly violence has worked, and try other options. One provocative notion in the book is that once a state officially supports a religion, that religion is corrupted. He cites Constantine's embrace of Christianity with making that formerly nonviolent faith into one that supports war to maintain peace. He also cites Islam as a faith that is about peace, but has been changed due to its status as the official state religion in some nations. An excellent conversation starter!

"The enemy is evil...despicable. We, on the other hand,...have God on our side. ...the soldiers [will] be rescuing a poor oppressed people who desperately need [our] help." Sound familiar? Justification for the "War on Terror" perhaps? Actually, it was Pope Urban II's rationale for beginning the crusades in 1095. Everyone should read this book, pacifists and warriors alike. It presents the history of war and humanity's sad justifications for it right alongside the history of nonviolence in the world. It shows how little the world has changed over the centuries when it comes to making war and the reasons for it. It also talks about how originally peaceful religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have been perverted by powerful people into rationalizations for war and imperialism. There are also wonderful examples of the power of nonviolence and the inablility of those in power to understand or combat it. The information in this book may not be a surprise to some people, but I think that it will be an eye opener to others. A wonderful book.

This is an important and subversive book in which the author crafts a compelling argument that most of history's wars have been unnecessary and pointless and that legitimate aims could have been more effectively achieved by nonviolent methods. He applies his arguements to a number of wars which most regard as "just," such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II. The author demonstrates that nonviolence is extremely powerful, that war is always based on lies, and that it is possible to create a world that is not based on violence. It will offend those who cannot allow themselves to think of past wars as pointless. It will infuriate politicians, policy makers, and many religeous leaders who need to glorify war and violence. I found it deeply moving and thoughtful. It should be assigned in every school.