Customer Reviews

Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea (Modern Library Chronicles)

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

 

 

Mark Kurlansky has written a very concise, fascinating and readable history of nonviolence as both a philosophy and an effective tactic for social change. He begins with a discussion of the spiritual roots of nonviolence in each of the major world religions and traces how each religion was subverted when it was co-opted by the state which began using it as an instrument to justify state power through warfare. We see this most dramatically with Pope Urban II's historic speech that began the Crusades. Variations of this speech, which asserted that the war was God's will and the obligation of every "good Christian," have been used by politicians ever since to drag their reluctant citizenry into bloody wars.

Kurlansky goes on to define common themes that have driven one war after another over many centuries from the Crusades through the current war in Iraq and concludes with 'The 25 Lessons,' including:

3. Practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
4. Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent
teachings.
6. Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.
8. People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.
9. A conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral
argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into
violence, the violent side has won.
10. The problem lies not in the nature of man, but the nature of power.
11. The longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes.
12. The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot
conceive of power without force.
15. A shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but
is used to consolidate the revolution itself.
16. Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
20. Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be
carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
21. Once you start the business of killing, you just get "deeper and
deeper" without limits.
22. Violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation - which is
only dismissed as irrational if the violence fails.
25. The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

I've read widely on the subject of nonviolence and this is this is the most concise, clear, pragmatic book I've read yet. This book also includes a bibliography of other classic works on the subject for further reading. Kurlansky has done an excellent job of writing in a language that Americans in particular will understand. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone interested in peace and nonviolence and I'm confident it will change your thinking. Peace.

While I don't share some of Mr. Kurlansky's political thinking, his book is well worth reading because it stimulates one's thinking on the big issues of war and peace. He gives some important recent examples (e.g., America in the 1960s, Eastern Europe in the 1980s, etc.) where nonviolence worked or might have worked (e.g., in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I am extremely skeptical of his apparent claim that nonviolence by itself could have ended slavery in the US or defeated Hitler. However, the important point Mr. Kurlansky makes is that nonviolence can work and that more people should be inspired by it and use it to resolve seemingly intractable disputes. The track record of war as a means of settling many disputes certainly is not great.

Kurlansky's rather small book (only about 180pgs) shows a number of examples of nonviolence, from secular and religious influences, that are presented in a fluid manner, not done in a text-book fashion so you won't feel like you're reading a how-to book.

Out of all of the books I have read on the subject of nonviolence, I didn't really pick up on anything I hadn't already read or learned about elsewhere, however, this would make a good PRIMER for those new to the philosophy of nonviolence. If you're interested in some real meat and potatos, look elsewhere (Muste, Zinn, Sharp, Wink, McCarthy).

Am I saying it's a bad book? Definitely not. It was well written; my only wish is that he decides to write a more in-depth book in the future.

"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.

Mark Kurlansky's book Nonviolence a History is able to weave historical anicdotes to make a compelling case for the failure of war. Through this historical narrative he makes it clear that nonviolence can and does work.

An important book for those inspired to oppose war or pragamtic rationale against war. Filled with religious and secular historical accounts this book touches all aspects of nonviolent movements from the failure or religion to stand on its nonviolent principles to the case against the so called "just wars," of American Revolution, Civil War and World War II

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.

Well, no real case or argument for nonviolent activism at all: just a survey at times both interesting and informative of the idea's effects. No real debate because no true investigation of the other side of the argument, The Just War. Rather at times just a mean caricature of the usual suspects: Bush, Reagan, Pope Urban; but to throw in Augustine and devote no close attention to his argument, well, that's too bad. Why then give it four stars and not lower? Because it's not a bad broad-brush survey of one side of the argument, the side which is frustrated with reality and wants world peace now and sees the failure to have it as evidence of either bad will or stupidity, probably both. But the book does have its emphasis in the right place: "nonviolence", it says, is positive, courageous, and effective; and given its bias and emphasis, the book is hopeful if grim. Besides, if you listen carefully and long enough to the side you do not often hear, you're bound to pick up something, and if you're lucky, some of its proper good will. The author should try it with Augustine.

Excellent. A must-read for anyone who is interested in having a future.

I like Kurlansky's other books and looked forward to reading this one. It even started out promisingly. But it quickly turned into a liberal diatribe that was typically simplistic of USA/Western/Capitalism. I am very open to the idea that we can find better ways of dealing with conflict than we currently do, but this book does not tell us how.

Kurlansky paints a picture by using only a single color. His book passes for real history without any of the balance that drives most real history books. I liked his differentiation of active nonviolence from real pacifism, but he never seems to explain the consequences for nonviolent action in truly horrific circumstances.

For example, he says that the world might have stopped Hitler if more people had tried nonviolent methods of resistance. He does not say, as most contemporary historians believe, that we would have been unable to invade Europe if we'd given Hitler another 4 years to start a war. In that regard, most of Europe would be speaking German today.

He is also very crass toward the people who suffer under dictators, nearly ignoring the atrocities that were inflicted on conquered populations. In one of his most offensive analyses, he says that the holocaust was not really stopped by the war, but certainly was started by it. He also casually explains that the Britons caused the bombing of London and ignores the casualties that German bombings inflicted.

I was also disappointed that he real atrocities, like human experimentation on prisoners by both the Germans and Japanese, the rape of Nanjing, 20 million deaths in Stalin's Russia, and German efforts to euthanize a variety of undesirables while the world negotiated for peace.

However, if you can read through his personal perspective that nonviolence really could work if we just gave it a chance, you'd find some good explanations of a few nonviolent movements.

Overall, he makes the case for nonviolence simply by saying that violence is so horrible, we should try anything to avoid it. If you consider warfare an end, not a means, you will wholeheartedly agree with everything in this book. However, if you understand history as a series of difficult choices for people in unforgiving circumstances, you may find the book too tedious.