Customer Reviews

Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea (Modern Library Chronicles)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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 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.

To those who have stumbled upon the "new" and "revolutionary" ideas of pacifism, this comprehensive history of nonviolence traces legacy as far back as Christ. Perhaps the poignancy of the read is in the thought that humanity has passed, time and again, the chance to extend compassion and good in the name of justice. Kurlansky notes how tragic and catastrophic events could have been averted or lessened had whole societies and nations actively taken a stance against evil. Even for those readers who believe in jus ad bellum, Kurlansky's delicate weaving of historical events and the hindsight that surrounds them makes a convincing argument- that one cannot bend to the pressures, the evil -no matter how seemingly insurmountable or seductive- and that simple acts of kindness, bravery and faith done by individuals can protect and defend innocence more than grand, scale battles and organized killing. This book makes a convincing argument for humanity as it reviews the senselessness of killing on a national and global level and even if one comes away unconvinced that war is wrong, one comes away convicted that to do nothing is worse.

This book is extremely broad, covering human history from the beginning of polytheistic religions until the (almost) present day. The author is funny, articulate, and never dwells on any one topic too long and thus refrains from being dull. But this is precisely the problem. With a book on one of the most serious of topics set on being entertaining, the author's arguments can't help but be cheapened, reminding one of the plastic siding on the house you wish you had stopped renting long ago.

The author has a skimpy bibliography for a work claiming to be "THE history" (no, not "a history," but THE history) and does not bother to use citations for quotations or ideas as controversial as "more Jews were saved by nonviolence than by violence" during World War II (133). Sometimes this flaw takes the form of a "take-home lesson" style sentence that is frankly propagandist and ultimately lazy. "History teaches that somewhere behind every war there are always a few lies used as justifications," is a potent claim that was buttressed by one example (albeit without citations) that is not directly referred to again (39).

This book is a good example of one that will make you believe in a cause that you know very little about. If you want inspiration, read this. If you want knowledge, read something else.

First - do not confuse his history of non-violence as a history of pacifism, as non-violence is peaceful resistance, not a lack of resistance.

I resisted buying this book for a while; even though I have read most of his other books, and have recommend Cod, The Big Oyster, and The Last Fish Tale to others. The case for active non-violence is strongly made in this book. There are numerous historic accounts of successful non-violent resistance that most of us have little familiarity, as our world tends to cater toward violence as a way of life and an instrument of the state. It points to the ethical issues, but also discusses how non-violent movements must be 100% non-violent to be effective - but that to achieve this and remain effective is very hard, as it does work against human nature.

I do believe this is a book that should be read by everyone in the world. What may not be emphasized enough is that active non-violence is probably necessary to maintain a true democracy - as the government is an instrument of power that will grow unchecked unless citizens actively question the government's motives - especially when that government tells us we are "un-American" to do so. If we asked the founding fathers, I bet they would say it us "un-American" to NOT challenge the motives authority and power. We should incorporate it in everyday life.

Kurlansky presents us history of nonviolence along with its ideology in a well presented chronological fashion. The background work is detailed and specific with many thinkers and leader's name for those who wish to find out more. I picked up about 30 or so, and am looking forward to further my education in this wonderful way of life.

Like all history books some omissions can shift the thinking of the reader to a desired place but what better place than nonviolence.

My favourite quote from this book is when Kurlansky concludes: "Ever war produces fresh crop of peace activists with the desire to change the world and a fresh determination to do it without violence. And for them every new war is a setback. But the advocates of peace and nonviolence come back stronger and more numerous each time. Given this formula, with enough wars the world may yet find peace."

Kurlansky's ideas, especially the 25 lessons that he seeks to prove throughout the book, are quite solid. However, some of his assertions are contradictory (for example, he claims that increased warfare will lead to a growing number of peace activists and ultimately eliminate war at the same time that he states that "violence will always lead to more violence"), and some of his facts are wrong (it's untrue that women obtained suffrage in the USA in 1929; they received that right in 1920). I like his ideas about nonviolence, and it's true that many successful instances of nonviolence are overlooked. However, the discrepancies in his book rendered me suspicious about much of what he had to say.

This book should be required reading in the White House, the Pentagon and Congress...and wherever decisions are made....in communities, families, churches...
It is truly a mind opening book about the possibility and use of nonviolent means to achieve peace and harmony in our lives.

This book should be required reading in the White House, Congress, the Pentagon and all places where decisions are made.

Mark Kurlansky's treatise, Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, examines the effectiveness of nonviolence as a means to create change in socity. Kurlansky explores the failures of violences to be effective in exacting real change as well as why leaders, countries, and people accept, excuse, and advocate violence when nonviolence would garner greater results. The reasons are often simple but just as often convaluted and almost always self-serving. He uses examples of nonviolence from history that lead to change as well as examples of violence that created chaos or appeared to overshadow the nonviolent methods of real change. Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea is thought provoking, interesting, well-researched and well-written if a bit academic at times.

One would get the impression that Christianity is the religion of hate given the wars the USA perpetrates on Moslem countries, and how both Catholics and protestants together have large, vocal contingents that call for ever more war. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of Jesus, and as far as I can tell the last leader who was pro-peace was Martin Luther King. And here is what he had to say:

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government

That was back in 1967. King was dead shortly thereafter. Perhaps that is why we have no such leader today.

We need to learn about nonviolence, and one of my top favorite three authors working today, Mark Kurlansky has written a book, Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Kurlansky opens the book with the observation that on the subject of non-violence, there is no word for it, not in any history or language. You can read Kurlansky's views on this phenomenon, which are interesting, but it seems to me that the expected synonym for non-violence, peace, is inadequate since peace is an aspect of freedom, especially truth in freedom, and violence is concentrated force, unto its terminal conclusion. Violence is always based in a lie, and exercised by force. Violence is so specific and limited that its opposite can be expressed only in abnegation: non-violence.

Most of Kurlansky's book are huge, generous, well written, and this book is short and well written, I suspect because the world has had so little experience with non-violence. The protestors in Egypt are showing it can work (so far) as did the protestors bringing down the Soviet bloc. The book is a fascinating and quick read, although I could quibble with some observations and analysis, I'd give this five stars. We need 500 more books on this topic, with people exploring the topic far more fully.

The last page gave me a bit of a charge. I am a CO (conscientious objector, different from a draft dodger), Vietnam era, govt certified (as if they would know)... and Kurlansky recounts the tale of a GI who change his mind about war, and applied for CO status. They asked the lad if he would defend his family from a violent intruder. He said yes, his application was denied. See, they do not know. Jesus defended the temple against violent intruders with force, yet He was nonviolent. Righteous rejection of immediate and effective danger can be expected, a brace of hearty kicks for the mugger who knocked down an old lady, nothing more than you'd see at a rugby game. It is qualitatively different to take a job where you train and wait to kill. There is a difference between saying yes to violence, and saying no but being caught up in the moment. One can reasonably be a conscientious objector, yet innocently take a life. You just cannot agree to it. And certainly one cannot join the military, or in any way accept alternative government service, and be non-violent, pro-peace. We need a lot more elucidation of non-violence, pacifism, positive non-fighting, and more examples world-wide. Let the ink flow!