Il pacifismo è passivo, la non violenza è attiva. Essa deve prevenire non dalla debolezza ma dalla forza, e solo le persone più determinate e disciplinate possono sperare di raggiungerla.
Il saggio cinese Mozi identificava nell'amore reciproco (chien ai) la chiave per sanare i mali del mondo.
Il rabbino Hillel rispose aun suo discepolo che lo interrogava sulla Torah: "Ciò che risulta sgradevole a te stesso, non farlo al tuo prossimo. Il resto non è altro che un commento a questo pincipio".
Coloro che praticano la non violenza vengono da sempre percepiti come una minaccia, un affronto diretto allo stato che intende invece mantenere il diritto di uccidere come privilegio esclusivo.
Lo scontro fra violenza e non violenza è sempre una controversia di natura morale e se la fazione non violenta si converte alla violenza, perde il vantaggio e diventa solo una questione di forza bruta.
La storia passa dai movimenti religiosi istituzionali (cquando correotti dal potere temporale divengono
guerrafondai) e di ribellione. Passa quindi attraverso la disamina di concetti quali Pax dei, jihad, chanukah, e analizza vari movimenti cristiani più o meno monacali (anabattisti, valdesi, catari, quaccheri...).
Descrive anche l'operato di vari personaggi di spicco nel mondo non violento come Te Whiti, David Low Dodge, William Garrison, Ghandi ("la forza non deriva dalla capacità fisica. Essa deriva da un'indomita volontà"), MLK, Badshah Khan, Richard Gregg.
Interessante anche se la storia racconatata è sbilanciata enormemente dalla parte occidentale, soprattutto americana.

In this book, Kurlansky combines a history of nonviolence with his advocacy of such. I don't think I agree with all of the conclusions he appears to draw, but this was a very thought-provoking polemic that certainly has encouraged me to think more deeply about some of what I thought I knew.

We get a (mostly) chronological examination of nonviolence in history and how it succeeded or failed in situations. At the very end, there was a list of his "25 lessons" that summarizes what Kurlansky thinks about the book and a call to action. We so often (as a society) seem to think that violence solves issues, and Kurlansky clearly tries to take show how it doesn't.

My concern with this book is that it's very slim, and I'm not convinced that every example he points to can be primarily explained by violence or nonviolence. You'd need a much, much longer book to attempt a counterfactual that nonviolent action could have resolved the conflict of the American Revolution for example, let alone World War II. I did find the perspective the author brought to be interesting, and lots of food for thought. I think I would've liked to have read more examples if the author had them, though, especially in the later chapters when he's getting into more modern times. His primary example for nonviolent action for World War II seemed to Denmark's protection of its Jews, but I don't think it would have worked as well for Poland, for example (part of why some parts of the book seemed a bit thin).

It's crazy to me how mad the presence of pacifists, nonviolent protestors, and conscientious objectors seems to make governments and other people, though.

I read this as part of my personal project to read Dayton Literary Peace Prize winners. This book was the 2007 Nonfiction Winner.

It is refreshing to read a piece of literature that bears so much truth in it as this book does.

A very interesting history of nonviolence. It especially made me want to find out more about the resistance in Denmark during WWII. The moral argument the author makes for nonviolence is convincing, the pragmatic argument is harder to accept. His explanation of the difference between passivity and nonviolent resistance made it clearer to me just what the applied methods of a nonviolent campaign are, and also made it clearer just how difficult it would be to practice nonviolence.

Bit one-sided in my opinion. Althought it shows what people practicing nonviolence may have to prepare for; to die for their cause.

Kurlansky provides an enlightening treatment of the history of non-violence. There are many histories of warfare; I doubt there are many at all of the alternative approach to resolving social and international conflict. He establishes that the theory and practice of non-violent struggle have been established--"the hard work" of beginning to abolish war has been done. Now it's a matter for implementation by larger and larger majorities.
From my point of view as a Christian pastor, he does a good job of establishing that Jesus taught and practiced non-violence. It was cooptation by state power in the Roman Empire that caused the movement launched by Jesus to lose its non-violent principles.
I am glad to recommend the book to Christians and non-Christians who want to explore the history and practice of non-violence.

This book is not superbly written: there are frequent paragraphs that wander from their initial point or sentences that must be reread three or four times in order to understand their unclear syntax.

But the ideas it communicates have a deep power, a morality that reaches down into the center of what you are and forces you to confront what you truly believe is right.

After reading, I am strongly inclined to say that nonviolence is right, and that it is perhaps a necessary condition for the next evolution of humanity; but also that I am not sure I am personally strong enough to live up to its ideals.

This book makes me feel hope. And it makes me feel small.

I finished this book feeling not particularly optimistic about non-violent resistance, despite some well researched and interesting history of instances where it has worked given sufficient time (20 years in the case of Poland), grassroots support and the incredible courage, forbearance and suffering of people in the front lines. I found the history of Denmark's resistance to the Nazis and the Pathans' resistance to the British inspiring but wondered why the most recent history of Northern Ireland was not included when the essentially non-violent collapse of the Soviet Union was given good coverage. In the face of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, though, you'd have to wonder whether we learn anything about war from one generation to the next. Most notable fact in this book for me was the information that Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy in the final years of his (Tolstoy's) life. According to the Theosophy Network Gandhi had read Tolstoy’s fundamental spiritual-political work The Kingdom of God is Within You shortly after it was published in English in1893 and had been much moved by it (despite the Christian slant). Christ’s teaching, wrote Tolstoy, differs from other teachings in that it guides humans not by eternal rules but by an inward consciousness of the possibility of reaching divine perfection. According to this web site, Tolstoy had discovered that non-violence must have a spiritual foundation, most clearly expressed for him in the Gospels. Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi “I read your book [Hind Swaraj] with great interest because I think that the question you treat in it — the passive resistance — is a question of the greatest importance not only for India but for the whole of humanity.” And so the baton was passed on.

History is unique in the ways it can be recorded to contrast the established dictum. The history of non-violence challenges the maxim that “history is written by victors" due to the subsequent and success rediscovery of active, non-violent resistance throughout the war-torn and blooded, recorded-history of humanity.

------

The book, which details a historical review of non-violence, keys in on 25 themes (or lessons) of non-violence:

1. There is no proactive word for nonviolence
2. Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them
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
5. A rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead
6. Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies
7. A propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings
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 in 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
13. It is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that prevails
14. All debate momentarily ends with an “enforced silence” once the first shots are fired
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
17. Warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists
18. People motivated by fear do not act well
19. While it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in a suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance
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
23. Violence is a virus that infects and takes over
24. The miracle is that despite all of society's promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values
25. The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

This is as much an exploration of power dynamics as it is about nonviolence as a tactic. I really appreciated that he gave narrative examples from a wide variety of cultures and situations from mostly modern history, since things like tech, industrialization, and globalism have changed the game. I’ll be thinking about this for a long time.

Having read a few of Mr. Kurlanksy's works, this one was interesting to me.
I read it quickly, seeing some familiar faces throughout. A few parts were quite interesting. While the religious state connection was clear, it seemed to be extremely direct. I would have preferred a more detailed understanding, though that is my own fault. This is not meant to be an in-depth book.
One area I felt lacking was the post-Vietnam period.

The key piece of takeaway is the infiltration of stooges into a movement to incite violence.
This is even presently being seen. Hopefully, non-violent groups can be more stringent in weeding out these murder/money-loving monsters. This is not an overreaction, especially considering the real death and destruction that that initial event and the following casualties can bring.

By the end, those who already had a positive view of non-violence would go away searching for more of an in depth writing on the subject, even with a variety of specific events. Those against the idea, which is the majority of the population, would probably go back to their pre-existing idea that violence solves problems, having taken little to nothing from the book.

Overall, useful information and a quick read.

With this book (and Salt), Mark has entered my top 5 list of  "who would you have dinner with..."

There's a shitload of really good quotes and just mind-blowing history.
Yes. It's blatantly preachy against war. And I would love to hear Stanley McChrystal's rebuttal (another very well read dinner guest)
But. You had me at mind-blowing history.

I do want...just...a bit more. maybe more numbers?
Like have my friend Jack the PhD statician tell me that "active non-Violence has a 37% better DALY after 3 generations" (Or some other bullshit)