In Ibram X Kendi's exceptional book How to Be an Antiracist, he explains that the opposite of racism is not non-racism but antiracism, or actively working against racism. Similarly, this book explains that non-violence is not simply the absence of violence but an active choice of resistance to violence. It is a political tactic and a deliberate practice rather than simply a state of being. Kurlansky outlines instances in which nonviolence has influenced the direction of history, as well as positing cases in which nonviolence could have been an effective tactic. While I don't feel the evidence presented was thorough enough to convince that, say, World War II could have seen effective nonviolent tactics put into practice against the Nazis, the overall message is strong and the "25 lessons" he introduces are both insightful and thought-provoking.

I FOUND THAT TO HAVE NO FOOTNOTES FOR ANYTHING, INCLUDING SOME OUTLANDISH IDEAS TO BE BAD JOURNALSISM. CYNICAL.

I read this with a vague hope of finding out that the world isn't completely stuffed. If nonviolence really works, and this book makes an excellent case that it does work, then utopia should be just around the corner. The problem is that it is a messy, confusing concept which requires crusaders with a level of dedication that seems superhuman.

Once again, I am listening to a book in the audible version that I first read almost a dozen years ago. But I am mostly surprise this time to find out that although I only gave this book 3 stars when I read it in the printed version, I fairly immediately new as I listened to the book that I was going to end up giving at five stars. It is possible that the reason for that is more because of the presentation then because of the content. Or possibly a dozen years ago, I was searching for solutions and with the audible version I was more simply experiencing the seemingly obvious flow of ideas that seemed convincing and encouraging.

The book goes through a good deal of history, including to me, the fascinating history of the development of the historic peace churches. The Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers are often associated with pacifism and antiwar positions. It was interesting to listen to some of that history presented in brief as a part of an effort to show that non-violence is present in a lot of our history, although we often seem not to be aware of it.
———————————

The subtitle of this book lets you know what to expect if you pick it up intending to read it: Nonviolence: Twenty Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea.

For me, nonviolence is a part of an ideal world. I am drawn to it but do not know where in my being it originated. I do not want to make the concept a weak rationale that explains how I try to travel on my life’s path. How do people fall under the spell of nonviolence?

I am a member and supporter of the War Resisters League. I joined many years ago by agreeing to this statement:

The War Resisters League affirms that all war is a crime against humanity. We are determined not to support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive nonviolently for the removal of the causes of war, including sexism, racism and all forms of human exploitation.

The United States’ oldest secular pacifist organization, the War Resisters League has been resisting war at home and war abroad since 1923.

Nonviolence is the absence of violence. There is no positive word that conveys that state of being. “Advocates of nonviolence – dangerous people – have been there throughout history…” Kurlansky asserts on the first page. Some have seen nonviolence as an unattainable ideal. We have the example of Jesus as a person who placed nonviolence at the top of the Jewish tenants. “You shall not kill,” is the most concise commandment of the Jewish and Christian religions. Whoops.

Active practitioners of nonviolence are always seen as a threat, a direct menace, to the state. The state maintains the right to kill as its exclusive and jealously guarded privilege.
…
One of history’s greatest lessons is that once the state embraces a religion, the nature of that religion changes radically. It loses its nonviolent component and becomes a force for war rather than peace.
…
And so a religion that is in the service of a state is a religion that not only accepts war but prays for victory.

Here is a GR review that includes the 25 lessons: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

The first third of the book revolves too much around religion for my liking. History tells us that nonviolence will not come through the religious bodies of the world. Religions justify violent warfare more often than they proscribe it. The answer to the question, “What would Jesus do?” is a nonstarter for most Christians. Jesus is the aberration. Only one of the twenty-five lessons makes a reference to religion and that is to say “Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings.” The Historic Peace Churches, Quaker, Mennonite, and Brethren, hardly qualify any more for their peace designation.

The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are visited in turn with only a very little attention paid to any nonviolent aspects. Opposing the American Revolution does not mean seeking a nonviolent way to separate from the British. Some did call for a negotiated settlement and there were numerous demonstrations and boycotts and we all know about dumping the tea in the harbor. What if Nat Turner had lead a nonviolent uprising? What indeed. There are the standard revelations that Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the union far more than to end slavery and that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the southern slaves where Lincoln had no authority. The history of the U.S. is by and large a history of wars and conflicts.

There were peace and antiwar movements in the U.S. until the time the U.S. entered World War I. Then it was equated with espionage. Calls for peace die with the firing of the first bullet. And the peace movement, at its best, never really espoused nonviolence but simply non war.

Nonviolence eventually becomes an antiwar book more than a book about nonviolence. You could contend that being antiwar necessarily means that you are nonviolent. The story of the Danish reaction to occupation by Nazi Germany shows how Danes took direct action to accomplish nonviolence rather than simple passivity. In this example, often referred to, nonviolence is at the forefront and is successful.

Later there are some fascinating pages about World War II and the Holocaust. The point is made that people and governments did know the Holocaust was happening and, for a variety of reasons, chose to do nothing. But the connection of this information with nonviolence is not clear to me. It may be that the connection is that a common objection to nonviolence is that it would not have been effective in saving the Jews. (The Danish experience notwithstanding.)

The American and English firebombing of cities killing thousands of civilians and the atomic bombing of Japan are also brought into the conversation about war. Again, I wonder about the relevance in a book about nonviolence. Maybe we are to see the worst results of violence in these cases to encourage us to try nonviolence. But that does not seem to have worked.

Gandhi comes up, of course, but strangely very little of King. A.J. Muste, a twentieth century pacifist, gets more than a brief mention. And then come the antinuclear movement, the civil rights movement, and the antiwar movement, all with their bits of nonviolent tactics and strategy. But only a commitment of a few who believed in the philosophy of nonviolence.

Major changes of government in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary occurred without bloodshed. The Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina are another example of nonviolence. And there are more experiences of nonviolent change included in the concluding pages of the book.

The first half of Nonviolence gets two stars from me: too much emphasis on religion which has a bad history in regard to nonviolence. But the second half gets four stars as it gets into real examples of the success of nonviolence in the world. So, as a whole, I give the book three stars.

An enjoyable take on a often debated, but largely misunderstood concept. I found myself at times scoffing at Kurlanksy's arguments though, and had trouble taking the book seriously. As I read through it, I felt more and more like Kurlanksy was trying to champion the idea rather discussing its place in history. Discussions around non-violence as a strategy are extremely important, I wholeheartedly endorse this book, but with the caveat that it is a popular text on history, rather than a more academic work for university study.

As with Salt, this felt like a slow start to me but I became more interested as it progressed.

Nonviolence is such an interesting concept but this book was overly simplistic in explaining its execution. It relies heavily on the notion that oppressed people should remain nonviolent despite the enormous personal costs (rather than addressing the violence of the oppressor). While violence should always be avoided where possible, there is also dignity in active resistance. Would have been good to work through case studies in more detail and address some common counterarguments. Also not as exciting a read as hoped! I suspect there are more sophisticated books on this topic out there.

Great introduction to the concept of non-violence (note: not the same as pacifism), and shows some great examples where non-violence (a concept so foreign to our natural inclination that the words for it in every language are only the negative of violence, rather than a positive term) has changed societies for the better. Very inspirational read. Humanity can do better. And as the author cites William Penn as saying, "somebody must begin it." We can all begin it, and we can all begin it in our lives today. Do we have the courage to do so?

Oh, when will we ever learn? like the song almost says

I had an absolute blast reading this book in which Mark Kurlansky brilliantly uses historical examples to prove how pointless war and violence really are in achieving the goals of justice and peace.

I loved how he demonstrates how the powerful fear nonviolent resistance more than anything else and how truly effective it’s been even against the worst of the worst.

The examples he gave spoke a lot louder than the Dalai Lama’s introduction which I found kind of lame.

This book was very encouraging to me.

An excellent history of non-violence, and an important read, timely. Nonviolence has always been one of the most dangerous ideologies; Kurlansky outlines the whys and whens.
You won't know how hard pacifism is until you've tried it. It takes self control and zealous attention to one's personal ideology constantly. Much easier to throw on a safety pin and let folks know you'll be getting involved in a not necessarily peaceful way.
Nice to hear about my Monnonite roots.

An engaging, thoughtful, and educational jaunt through some of the history of nonviolence and philosophies therein. I learned a lot. Would have been five stars if there was more focus on nonviolence movements outside the Western world.

All in all, though, a highly-recommended read for our troubled world.