Would like to see an updated version of this to include the last few years. Really enjoyed R. Dreyfuss as the reader.

A very good history of nonviolence. This is not a persuasive book, however; it is not written to persuade violent people to become nonviolent. It is of interest to those already interested in nonviolence and its successes.

I found myself disagreeing around conclusions he was drawing about the actions of the oppressors around and during the Civil War and WW2 and I think it is foolhardy to speculate on if these groups would’ve been less violent in their actions if opposed differently and some of his phrasing implies (though I firmly believe this phrasing was unintentional on his part) an acceptable level of oppression that I find particularly abhorrent. I think he ultimately fails to sell the argument he is making because he holds a hopeful faith in the project of nonviolence that leads to the aforementioned phrasing and doesn’t reflect the realities of history. But I’m not mad I read it and I found it to be very thought provoking and continuing to think about it will certainly help refine my own thoughts about nonviolence and violence as political tools.

All in all I think Kurlansky is at his best when he is dealing with the history of the concrete (paper) rather than arguing for a position using history (nonviolence).

Really thought-provoking stuff. Most intriguing was the point that although many people suffer unfairly as victims when practicing non-violent resistance, this is exactly what happens in war, too. That is really a thought that should be more obvious. There’s a lot in here that actually makes good sense about the theological underpinnings of nonviolence, the coopting of movements by the state, and the nature of violence and power. There’s also cohesive challenges to historical narratives that discounted or ignored nonviolent contributions.

Well worth the read. I gave it 4 stars, but I would give it 4.5 stars if I knew how. This history gave many short synopses on the history of nonviolence and debunks the idea that President Reagan ended the Cold War.
It stirs up a chance to study many more nonviolence movements throughout history. For instance A.J. Muste's work at the very beginning of the Civil Rights movement in the mid 20th Century and an argument he had with seminary student, Martin Luther King, about nonviolence. King argue against nonviolence then.
A touching account of how Bayard Rustin during a protest against the Korean War was beaten by a man with a stick. Rustin gave him another stick asking the man if he would like to use both sticks. According to Kurlansky, the angry man put both sticks down.
This study is not limited to the 20th century. It goes back to pre-Constantine Christians and reports on some in the Roman military who gave up their lives instead of fighting in war.
You will amass a great number of names of people who throughout history committed themselves to this dangerous idea and how they managed to start a still-growing movement.

I liked reading history books, and this is a new look at the history I thought I knew. Kurlansky points out missed opportunities as well as success stories of non violent demonstration. The 25 lessons have to do with the ridiculous, yet compelling arguments and tactics of violence. "Behind every war, there are a few founding lies" etc. It was very thought provoking. It is so easy and takes zero thought to be violent. But to be non violent in the face of violence takes such self discipline and determination that appears of be rare in our world - past and present. Or is it just that only violence is recorded as significant? This book made me think about maternal feminism and how non violence seems to be intertwined. If there were more women in politics, would nations be less violent?

Disappointing. Kurlansky feels more like he's telling a story than a history with this - from his discussion of Judaism as a pacifist religion (I mean, come on, there are passages in Deuteronomy where God demands genocide, and there are passages where God's law demands the execution of children for not obeying their parents) to his insistence that pacifism could have changed the world for the better in certain circumstances. My understanding of pacifism hasn't really changed from before I read this: pacifism works sometimes, doesn't other times, and geographic/economic situations ultimately determine its success or failure.

Even Kurlansky's tone, at times, seems weirdly confrontational for a book on pacifism.

Mark Kurlansky is an excellent writer, He makes a very strong case for nonviolence. He sees nonviolence as a political tactic, and openly questions those cases in history that have been routinely touted as examples of regimes which would be impervious to a Ghandi-like resistance.

He singles out the Nazi's and the slave-owning southern states of America as deserving special consideration, because it is the accepted wisdom that nonviolence would have been ineffective in these two cases. There are of course limits to what counter-factual histories can tell us, if indeed they can tell us anything, but despite Kurlansky's arguments, I find myself doubting the idea of countering Nazi atrocities with nonviolence.

Nonviolence can be an effective tactic, but two conditions need to be met: The world has to be watching, and someone somewhere has to care about your plight. In the case of the European Jews or the African slaves, that simply wasn't the case. Either people were not watching, or people did not care, and so no amount of nonviolence on the part of the oppressed was likely to change behaviors.

Many of the examples given in the book of nonviolent resistance resulted in death and ruined lives for those engaged in the practice. Certainly violence would have fared them so better in most cases, but are we expected not to fight when our freedoms and our lives are about to be taken? What about the lives and freedoms of our children, friends and others?

Nonviolence is a tactic. When it can be effective, it should be used. But when you take violence off the table, and forever foreswear its use, nonviolence might be seen as a weakness to be exploited. All tactics have to be on the table.

Still, I'm attracted to nonviolence as a practice, and in all cases that I can envision myself involved in seem amenable to this tactic. I'd have to be pretty desperate to give up peace. But that's easy for me to say, living as I do in my nice house in my nice city nestled here in New England. I won't be so quick to judge those in more dire circumstances.

The book I read was called Non-Violence by Mark Kurlansky, published in 2008 and if you're looking for a thought-provoking book this one is for you. The book takes the reader on a historically literal and hypothetical journey all on the premise of non-violence. Mark Kurlansky shows us how Non-Violence has been suppressed and how dangerous it is to those engulfed in greed and cruelty and shows us why. He also shows us what it's capable of and how ist been used across the ages. This non-fiction novel stokes curiosity and profound, even shocking discoveries about our world.
I thought the book was fantastic and I deeply reflected on the worldwide history of nonviolence. I was shocked by the religious history of peace and non-violence and how in a way many religious followers combat their own ideas. My favorite quote was "If power forgives, it prepares for its own destruction because none will fear it when they see that it uses love and not the force before which one trembles" - Petr Chelcicky. This quote is so powerful and thought-provoking because of its meaning and how advanced the statement is. 400 years after Petr's Life we still have not learned the lesson being taught by Petr and his statement. This quote and Petr himself additionally fascinated me because they set the groundwork for modern beliefs such as Marxism and Anarchism.
Non-violence is a book that gives rise to thought, challenges the norm, provokes discussion, and ultimately leaves one with new beliefs. Those who would enjoy this book would be those interested in non-fiction, social justice, psychology, history, and philosophy.

This book made me profoundly sad about humankind. Although it was supposed to be abot non-violence, it was more so a history of violence, war, and injustice with a few examples of brave men who practiced non-violent resistance. Are we ever capable of learning and ending the violence?

More on violence than noviolence, though. But an educational and interesting read nevertheless. If you are naively (note to self) hoping to find elaborate descriptions on how nonviolence works magic, you'll have to settle for reading in between the lines that things /can/ or /could/ get better, because there have always been people who stand tall against injustice and stay true to their nonviolent convictions.
Also when agreeing to the underying principle it is an encouraging read, also when broadening the view not only looking at war but human communication al large.

As a "history of" nonviolence it was OK but a bit brief in sections that I thought should or could be covered in more detail. I found his exegesis of certain Biblical passages when dealing with Christian nonviolence marginal at best. He "cherry picked" those passages that he felt supported his view but failed to address quite a few passages that did not. And even those he chose to use, there are other possible and more likely translations from the original languages that would lead one to a different conclusion. Later in the book his discussion of the fall of Communism and of apartheid in South Africa were also rather simplistic. He failed to address the economic pressures on both systems, from outside in South Africa's case and internal in the communist East.