What do you think?
Rate this book
Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
In this timely, highly original, and controversial narrative, New York Times bestselling author Mark Kurlansky discusses nonviolence as a distinct entity, a course of action, rather than a mere state of mind.
Nonviolence can and should be a technique for overcoming social injustice and ending wars, he asserts, which is why it is the preferred method of those who speak truth to power.
'Nonviolence' is a sweeping yet concise history that moves from ancient Hindu times to present - day conflicts raging in the Middle East and elsewhere. Kurlansky also brings into focus just why nonviolence is a “dangerous” idea, and asks such provocative questions as: Is there such a thing as a “just war”? Could nonviolence have worked against even the most evil regimes in history?
Kurlansky draws from history twenty-five provocative lessons on the subject that we can use to effect change today. He shows how, time and again, violence is used to suppress nonviolence and its practitioners – Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example; that the stated deterrence value of standing national armies and huge weapons arsenals is, at best, negligible; and, encouragingly, that much of the hard work necessary to begin a movement to end war is already complete. It simply needs to be embraced and accelerated.
Engaging, scholarly, and brilliantly reasoned, 'Nonviolence' is a work that compels readers to look at history in an entirely new way. This is not just a manifesto for our times but a trailblazing book whose time has come.
Nonviolence can and should be a technique for overcoming social injustice and ending wars, he asserts, which is why it is the preferred method of those who speak truth to power.
'Nonviolence' is a sweeping yet concise history that moves from ancient Hindu times to present - day conflicts raging in the Middle East and elsewhere. Kurlansky also brings into focus just why nonviolence is a “dangerous” idea, and asks such provocative questions as: Is there such a thing as a “just war”? Could nonviolence have worked against even the most evil regimes in history?
Kurlansky draws from history twenty-five provocative lessons on the subject that we can use to effect change today. He shows how, time and again, violence is used to suppress nonviolence and its practitioners – Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example; that the stated deterrence value of standing national armies and huge weapons arsenals is, at best, negligible; and, encouragingly, that much of the hard work necessary to begin a movement to end war is already complete. It simply needs to be embraced and accelerated.
Engaging, scholarly, and brilliantly reasoned, 'Nonviolence' is a work that compels readers to look at history in an entirely new way. This is not just a manifesto for our times but a trailblazing book whose time has come.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
138 people are currently reading
3463 people want to read
About the author
Mark Kurlansky
68 books1,980 followersMark Kurlansky is an American journalist and author who has written a number of books of fiction and nonfiction. His 1997 book, Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World (1997), was an international bestseller and was translated into more than fifteen languages. His book Nonviolence: Twenty-five Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea (2006) was the nonfiction winner of the 2007 Dayton Literary Peace Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews
April 9, 2012
This book was absolutely captivating.
The history of non-violence is unrepresented in our educational system. In fact, it is quite the opposite: our educational system presents history almost entirely as a progression of violent acts.
Kurlansky's book is remarkable for several reasons. It is a fascinating, lucid account of the non-violence movement throughout history, most of which we have never before encountered. His writing is excellent - clear and concise, and yet descriptive. And the story is so engaging it draws you in like a fiction novel.
Kurlansky contrasts the non-violence movement from that of the pacifist's. Gandhi was in fact antagonistic to the inaction in pacifism. Kurlansky quotes Ghandi, "Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for the violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." As you read this book, you become aware of the incredible bravery of those in the active non-violence movement. As one non-violent leader was quoted as saying, it requires far more bravery to be an active non-violent protestor than a warrior.
Some of the writings from the non-violent movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are amazingly powerful. It makes one wonder how we could still be fighting wars in the twenty-first century. I can only think it is because we have leaders who lack imagination, intelligence, and yes; bravery.
I believe every teenager should have this book as required reading.
I rarely keep books. After I have read them, I put them out in to the world for others to enjoy. This book I will keep and read again many times. I would put it in my top ten of all time. Along with "All Is Quiet On The Western Front", it is a cry to humanity to stop the madness of war.
The history of non-violence is unrepresented in our educational system. In fact, it is quite the opposite: our educational system presents history almost entirely as a progression of violent acts.
Kurlansky's book is remarkable for several reasons. It is a fascinating, lucid account of the non-violence movement throughout history, most of which we have never before encountered. His writing is excellent - clear and concise, and yet descriptive. And the story is so engaging it draws you in like a fiction novel.
Kurlansky contrasts the non-violence movement from that of the pacifist's. Gandhi was in fact antagonistic to the inaction in pacifism. Kurlansky quotes Ghandi, "Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for the violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." As you read this book, you become aware of the incredible bravery of those in the active non-violence movement. As one non-violent leader was quoted as saying, it requires far more bravery to be an active non-violent protestor than a warrior.
Some of the writings from the non-violent movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are amazingly powerful. It makes one wonder how we could still be fighting wars in the twenty-first century. I can only think it is because we have leaders who lack imagination, intelligence, and yes; bravery.
I believe every teenager should have this book as required reading.
I rarely keep books. After I have read them, I put them out in to the world for others to enjoy. This book I will keep and read again many times. I would put it in my top ten of all time. Along with "All Is Quiet On The Western Front", it is a cry to humanity to stop the madness of war.
May 24, 2023
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 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.
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.
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.
July 26, 2016
"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. The state must make war, because without war it would have to drop its power politics and renege on its mission to seek advantage over other nations, enhancing itself at the expense of others. And so a religion that is in the service of a state is a religion that not only accepts war but prays for victory. (25-26)That was a passage which particularly stood out to me; it sets the tone for the entire book. Kurlansky seeks to delineate the history of nonviolence (through examples from religious teachings to individual dissenters – from the sayings of Chinese sages through those of Jesus, to the actions of MLK and resisters of Soviet rule in Czechoslovakia) in order to show that it can work and that violence should not be uncritically accepted as inevitable. Look, it isn't a flawless work; Kurlansky blows through millennia worth of history in fewer than 200 pages – of course it suffers from lack of depth and development in the areas that it examines. The upside of this approach, however, is that you receive a clear and highly focused overview – more so, perhaps, than you would get had Kurlansky spent the arguably required 800 pages on the topic. Even if in places the discussion isn't as elaborate as one might like, the book has power through its concentrated effort. It also, I have to admit, exposed some areas of history about which I either possessed little knowledge, or which I had never realized went quite like that. History is never objective – I think this lesson can be added to the 25 that Kurlansky draws from his survey of the history of nonviolence. I've included them, here, if you're interested (to be honest: I mostly added them for myself, to come back to later). The 'lessons' are less powerful on their own; they are more convincing after you have read the book. I think that speaks to the value of Nonviolence in and of itself.
The Twenty-Five Lessons:
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 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 nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, then the violent side has won.
10) The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power.
11) The longer the 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 had already been done.
February 4, 2018
I never expected this book to be such a disappointment.
I noticed so many inaccuracies that I couldn't trust any of the information about subjects that I knew nothing about yet. Many claims were made without any type of source. (Also, the simplistic definition of zen at its mentioning in the same breath as Zionism felt like a true disaster to me)
Oppressor violence is spoken about as if it just is. It is already there. The reaction of the oppressed against this oppressor-violence, that's what could exist in a number of different forms: being passive (will lead to death), effective nonviolence (will lead to peace and stopping of oppressor's violence), or ineffective violence (will lead to death and more violence).
The examples of nonviolence at work and violence failing is what made me quite uncomfortable, I think. Often evidence and stories seemed to be cherry-picked. My first problem with these examples was that the reasoning the author gives could easily be turned around. For example, the author talks about the genocide of Jews in WW2 and gives us the example of Denmark: the country hid its jews and refused to cooperate, thereby saving almost all of them. This is a fantastic nonviolent point and I wish the author kept it at that. However, he extends this example by mentioning France: armed resistance, 25% of Jews killed. The Netherlands: armed resistance, 75% killed. Poland: armed resistance and armed jews: 90% killed. He makes it sounds as if these armed resistances caused or at least were partially responsible for the genocide. Could it not also be said that the worse the violence of the oppressor was, the bigger the resistance became? Is it just the turned around reasoning that is supposed to convince us here?
The second thing that made me uncomfortable in these examples of the author was the retrospective "what if" reasoning, combined with a snarky tone and the condemnation of violence. Black slaves in the US reacted to their horrible circumstances with either being passive or being violent, according to the author. This is a pity, because what if they had responded with more nonviolence? It could have ended all with more gains, but now they ended up with a civil war that caused many deaths. The same sort of examples keeps being mentioned: WW2 and the holocaust, Haiti and the war of 'extermination', etc. Are there no better arguments than to hypothesize that everything could have been better for those who have suffered so much, if only that had responded in a better way?
The third problem I had with many examples was that it was such a flat piece of history. Politics, economics, all sorts of external and internal pressures... These all have their role in conflicts too, but were often barely talked about. I get that rushing through hundreds of years of civilization can't be that in depth, but this felt too simplistic.
Also, I can't stand the glorification of Gandhi. He is called a genius, quirky, someone with a mischievous sense of humor. Is it nonviolent too to overlook someone's sexism, racism, homophobia, classism and to not make a mention of it?
tl;dr I think the nonviolence movement deserves way better than this book
I noticed so many inaccuracies that I couldn't trust any of the information about subjects that I knew nothing about yet. Many claims were made without any type of source. (Also, the simplistic definition of zen at its mentioning in the same breath as Zionism felt like a true disaster to me)
Oppressor violence is spoken about as if it just is. It is already there. The reaction of the oppressed against this oppressor-violence, that's what could exist in a number of different forms: being passive (will lead to death), effective nonviolence (will lead to peace and stopping of oppressor's violence), or ineffective violence (will lead to death and more violence).
The examples of nonviolence at work and violence failing is what made me quite uncomfortable, I think. Often evidence and stories seemed to be cherry-picked. My first problem with these examples was that the reasoning the author gives could easily be turned around. For example, the author talks about the genocide of Jews in WW2 and gives us the example of Denmark: the country hid its jews and refused to cooperate, thereby saving almost all of them. This is a fantastic nonviolent point and I wish the author kept it at that. However, he extends this example by mentioning France: armed resistance, 25% of Jews killed. The Netherlands: armed resistance, 75% killed. Poland: armed resistance and armed jews: 90% killed. He makes it sounds as if these armed resistances caused or at least were partially responsible for the genocide. Could it not also be said that the worse the violence of the oppressor was, the bigger the resistance became? Is it just the turned around reasoning that is supposed to convince us here?
The second thing that made me uncomfortable in these examples of the author was the retrospective "what if" reasoning, combined with a snarky tone and the condemnation of violence. Black slaves in the US reacted to their horrible circumstances with either being passive or being violent, according to the author. This is a pity, because what if they had responded with more nonviolence? It could have ended all with more gains, but now they ended up with a civil war that caused many deaths. The same sort of examples keeps being mentioned: WW2 and the holocaust, Haiti and the war of 'extermination', etc. Are there no better arguments than to hypothesize that everything could have been better for those who have suffered so much, if only that had responded in a better way?
The third problem I had with many examples was that it was such a flat piece of history. Politics, economics, all sorts of external and internal pressures... These all have their role in conflicts too, but were often barely talked about. I get that rushing through hundreds of years of civilization can't be that in depth, but this felt too simplistic.
Also, I can't stand the glorification of Gandhi. He is called a genius, quirky, someone with a mischievous sense of humor. Is it nonviolent too to overlook someone's sexism, racism, homophobia, classism and to not make a mention of it?
tl;dr I think the nonviolence movement deserves way better than this book
September 23, 2009
I didn't particularly enjoy Kurlansky's book on nonviolence--although his facts are accurate, they are often incomplete and his tone is snarky throughout. Someone whose introduction to nonviolence is this book is likely to reject the whole business.
March 18, 2013
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.
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.
January 31, 2014
Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea is a book that I've seen many human rights activists who I admire recommend, and it's really opened my eyes to seeing things from a different point of view. In Nonviolence, Kurlansky provides an insightful overview of this powerful mindset and movement, citing its early origins in the foundations of religions such as Christianity and Hinduism, and carries it through to describing its use in relation to the fall of the Soviet Empire. He illustrates the differences between nonviolence and pacifism, draws upon how States around the world have manipulated religion to promote wars and ultimately promotes nonviolence as the only way to achieve sustainable peace. The chapters are short and accessible, yet packed full of information, and he rounds it off with a 25 lessons summary at the end to recap what you've just read.
Nonviolence is a fascinating book which will help you to think about the futility of war and violence, and hopefully it'll encourage more people to question and proactively change (through nonviolent means) the power-mad agendas of their governments. One of my favourite quotes that's stuck in my mind is one by Hannah Arendt - "The practice of violence changes the world, but the most probable change is a more violent world.".
Nonviolence is a fascinating book which will help you to think about the futility of war and violence, and hopefully it'll encourage more people to question and proactively change (through nonviolent means) the power-mad agendas of their governments. One of my favourite quotes that's stuck in my mind is one by Hannah Arendt - "The practice of violence changes the world, but the most probable change is a more violent world.".
February 26, 2021
I believe that the author convinced me that I can’t truly rationalize the use of violence. However, I’m not fully convinced that non-violence can work. I’ll be wrestling with the implied task: “Somebody must begin taking no part whatever in violence, and be ready to suffer every persecution that this abstention brings.”
September 10, 2024
I read this book with the intention of expanding my perspective, given the line of work I’m in and the socialization I’ve received as an American citizen. More than anything, the information contained in this book is a smattering of different pockets of nonviolent dissidence from all over the world, throughout recorded history. For that reason, I found it valuable.
A lot of the content focuses on America’s past, especially many of the communities/state leaders/public figures that popularized nonviolence (I.e. the Quakers, certain American authors/artists, suffragettes, and Jim Crow protestors). I feel like I gained an alternate perspective about class stratifications and what they have to do with why and how America engages in warfare.
Another big focus of the book is a deep dive into different nonviolent characters throughout human history: Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Badshah Khan, William Lloyd Garrison. Exploring their stories was fairly amusing but infrequently a holistically detailed account of who each man was. I kind of felt that way throughout the whole book; that each paragraph was a mere glimpse into any given conflict, demonstration, battle, protest, etc. that Kurlansky cited, instead of a well-briefed expo on each event’s background. I suppose I could consult a civics textbook for a deeper dive into each.
As a Christian myself, I enjoyed the exploration of what true Christian values exclaim and how the Church has been evilly co-opted by governments (and even men within the papacy) across the world and through history. I agreed with Kurlansky on many of his assertions here- primarily that the moment a state claims a Christian identity, it can do nothing to stop its degradation of promoting Christian values, due to the fact that a nation will always champion borders, campaigns, and therefore war. While he explained much of this with success, there were still a few falsehoods about Christian teaching, but the central idea of Christians being peacemakers was indeed true. Kurlansky did a similar exposition about Islam, and may have handled it just as well.
Some of the conclusions drawn from the evidence and facts collected were questionable. I found myself wanting to be convinced by a few arguments but realized that some of Kurlansky’s deliveries would fall short of changing my mind. That was a bit of a bummer, but maybe it was just because the book was short and didn’t dedicate hours and hours of reading time to hashing out each arguments intricacies?
The book ends with a list of 20 or so truths about nonviolence, and as I read them, I have to concede that they are real. The list includes most of the concepts visited all throughout the book- the longer a war lasts, the more popular it becomes, people who go to war start to resemble their enemy, etc. I think that overall, I appreciate the reminder that as man, we are not built for killing one another. It’s an essential truth to remember, and for increasing my familiarity with the subject, I am grateful to Mark Kurlansky. But I can’t say exactly that I was crazy about this book lol
A lot of the content focuses on America’s past, especially many of the communities/state leaders/public figures that popularized nonviolence (I.e. the Quakers, certain American authors/artists, suffragettes, and Jim Crow protestors). I feel like I gained an alternate perspective about class stratifications and what they have to do with why and how America engages in warfare.
Another big focus of the book is a deep dive into different nonviolent characters throughout human history: Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Badshah Khan, William Lloyd Garrison. Exploring their stories was fairly amusing but infrequently a holistically detailed account of who each man was. I kind of felt that way throughout the whole book; that each paragraph was a mere glimpse into any given conflict, demonstration, battle, protest, etc. that Kurlansky cited, instead of a well-briefed expo on each event’s background. I suppose I could consult a civics textbook for a deeper dive into each.
As a Christian myself, I enjoyed the exploration of what true Christian values exclaim and how the Church has been evilly co-opted by governments (and even men within the papacy) across the world and through history. I agreed with Kurlansky on many of his assertions here- primarily that the moment a state claims a Christian identity, it can do nothing to stop its degradation of promoting Christian values, due to the fact that a nation will always champion borders, campaigns, and therefore war. While he explained much of this with success, there were still a few falsehoods about Christian teaching, but the central idea of Christians being peacemakers was indeed true. Kurlansky did a similar exposition about Islam, and may have handled it just as well.
Some of the conclusions drawn from the evidence and facts collected were questionable. I found myself wanting to be convinced by a few arguments but realized that some of Kurlansky’s deliveries would fall short of changing my mind. That was a bit of a bummer, but maybe it was just because the book was short and didn’t dedicate hours and hours of reading time to hashing out each arguments intricacies?
The book ends with a list of 20 or so truths about nonviolence, and as I read them, I have to concede that they are real. The list includes most of the concepts visited all throughout the book- the longer a war lasts, the more popular it becomes, people who go to war start to resemble their enemy, etc. I think that overall, I appreciate the reminder that as man, we are not built for killing one another. It’s an essential truth to remember, and for increasing my familiarity with the subject, I am grateful to Mark Kurlansky. But I can’t say exactly that I was crazy about this book lol
August 13, 2017
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.
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.
June 25, 2025
This was extremely enlightening, disheartening, and also hopeful work
March 31, 2008
A lovely little book with a nice organizational conceit: a list of lessons. The author makes arguments that will be impossible to disagree with, even if they are hard to put into practice. Others are less obvious and might make some readers question the assertions made. But that's good. I found myself questioning some assumptions I had labored under for some time (e.g., was WWII really a good or even necessary war?).
The folks who will find this book most useful are those of us who are drawn to the idea of nonviolence and have a strong conviction about its rightness, but who still need some intellectual convincing themselves (and the means with which to convince others) to support this conviction.
Those who are highly skeptical of nonviolence may not be persuaded by such a thin tome (although it will at least raise some interesting questions). Of coruse, such people are not likely the actual or even intended readership.
The folks who will find this book most useful are those of us who are drawn to the idea of nonviolence and have a strong conviction about its rightness, but who still need some intellectual convincing themselves (and the means with which to convince others) to support this conviction.
Those who are highly skeptical of nonviolence may not be persuaded by such a thin tome (although it will at least raise some interesting questions). Of coruse, such people are not likely the actual or even intended readership.
August 2, 2012
I FOUND THAT TO HAVE NO FOOTNOTES FOR ANYTHING, INCLUDING SOME OUTLANDISH IDEAS TO BE BAD JOURNALSISM. CYNICAL.
January 16, 2023
This is a small book with a huge scope, giving an excellent overview of both Eastern and Western war and nonviolence throughout history. It is designed for general audiences, and gets its intended job done well. I came away hungry for more depth and nuance. That's not a criticism; I credit the book for leaving me thinking and wanting to learn more. It serves as a great starting point, much like a Wikipedia article...and as with Wikipedia, academic folks may want to fact-check and research further. There's a good bibliography that allows for this.
The book draws an important distinction between passive pacifism and nonviolent activism; the author laments that the word nonviolence itself is a passive construction /that there is no widely accepted active verb for resisting without violent force. Thus, even our language is shaped with a predisposition to violence. This discussion anticipated my objection: that it is wrong to stand aside when life and freedom are threatened. The author agrees, and argues that nonviolence is far more effective than war, which for centuries has compounded oppression.
While I have often thought of nonviolence in idealistic terms, Kurlansky emphasizes the pragmatic effort of nonviolent leaders. I was impressed with his claim that nonviolence requires more creativity than lashing out violetly. An effective nonviolent protest demands thoughtful and organized solutions to complex problems. Nonviolent activists must be unwaveringly courageous because one lapse into violence can jeopardize the moral high ground and validate the enemy. Still, the book avoids idolizing or sanitizing nonviolent movements, noting that martyrs are easily dismissed or used as incendiary propaganda to promote warfare.
Kurlansky challenged many of my perceptions of the historic events discussed, leading me to consider how propaganda may have influenced my thinking about wars of the past. I rarely think of propaganda as retrospective, but it makes sense that our perception of the past impacts our responses to current events. Most challenging was that it was difficult for me not to see criticisms of violent methods as criticisms of the just causes themselves, I am so used to just war arguments. Here, I think more nuanced deep dives would help me to unpack my more conventional understanding of military history, whereas Kurlansky is a bit blunt in the interest of being both concise and convicted.
A provoking, influential read. Definitely reccomended. I am, if not fully persuaded, extremely curious.
The book draws an important distinction between passive pacifism and nonviolent activism; the author laments that the word nonviolence itself is a passive construction /that there is no widely accepted active verb for resisting without violent force. Thus, even our language is shaped with a predisposition to violence. This discussion anticipated my objection: that it is wrong to stand aside when life and freedom are threatened. The author agrees, and argues that nonviolence is far more effective than war, which for centuries has compounded oppression.
While I have often thought of nonviolence in idealistic terms, Kurlansky emphasizes the pragmatic effort of nonviolent leaders. I was impressed with his claim that nonviolence requires more creativity than lashing out violetly. An effective nonviolent protest demands thoughtful and organized solutions to complex problems. Nonviolent activists must be unwaveringly courageous because one lapse into violence can jeopardize the moral high ground and validate the enemy. Still, the book avoids idolizing or sanitizing nonviolent movements, noting that martyrs are easily dismissed or used as incendiary propaganda to promote warfare.
Kurlansky challenged many of my perceptions of the historic events discussed, leading me to consider how propaganda may have influenced my thinking about wars of the past. I rarely think of propaganda as retrospective, but it makes sense that our perception of the past impacts our responses to current events. Most challenging was that it was difficult for me not to see criticisms of violent methods as criticisms of the just causes themselves, I am so used to just war arguments. Here, I think more nuanced deep dives would help me to unpack my more conventional understanding of military history, whereas Kurlansky is a bit blunt in the interest of being both concise and convicted.
A provoking, influential read. Definitely reccomended. I am, if not fully persuaded, extremely curious.
November 11, 2020
A lot of interesting, thought-provoking stuff in here. It's a very readable introduction to the topic of nonviolence. I found it readable and enjoyable, though that may well be because I'm inclined to agree with the premise to start with.
Obviously a book like this is going to be biased, and Kurlansky does leave out some complicating details. For example, he talks about the anabaptists and their persecution partially for their refusal to bear arms, without mentioning the Munster rebellion of 1534-35. (I'm sure there are more examples, I just happened to know more about early anabaptists than about most of the other examples in the book.)
Another concern is that on some topics, his sources which should be scholarly seem to be either very old or not a scholarly (peer-reviewed and/or edited) publication. This may be due to a dearth of scholarly publications on the topic from this perspective, but I would like to find materials with the same arguments that are more academically rigorous.
However, I don't think these concerns necessarily invalidate the main thrust of the book. It makes a good jumping-off point to explore the topic more in-depth, as long as one recognizes that it is more a political than an academic piece of writing.
One thing that makes that clear, and perhaps this is more a personal taste thing, is that Kurlansky uses phrases like 'history teaches us' a lot. I hate that phrase. I've seen it used on multiple sides of arguments, and almost always by non-academics. History doesn't teach, the (inevitably biased) selected presentation and interpretation of history 'teaches'. (This is something Kurlansky seems quite aware of when it comes to how history is generally presented by war-inclined governments, but doesn't mention in relation to his own presentation of it.)
Obviously a book like this is going to be biased, and Kurlansky does leave out some complicating details. For example, he talks about the anabaptists and their persecution partially for their refusal to bear arms, without mentioning the Munster rebellion of 1534-35. (I'm sure there are more examples, I just happened to know more about early anabaptists than about most of the other examples in the book.)
Another concern is that on some topics, his sources which should be scholarly seem to be either very old or not a scholarly (peer-reviewed and/or edited) publication. This may be due to a dearth of scholarly publications on the topic from this perspective, but I would like to find materials with the same arguments that are more academically rigorous.
However, I don't think these concerns necessarily invalidate the main thrust of the book. It makes a good jumping-off point to explore the topic more in-depth, as long as one recognizes that it is more a political than an academic piece of writing.
One thing that makes that clear, and perhaps this is more a personal taste thing, is that Kurlansky uses phrases like 'history teaches us' a lot. I hate that phrase. I've seen it used on multiple sides of arguments, and almost always by non-academics. History doesn't teach, the (inevitably biased) selected presentation and interpretation of history 'teaches'. (This is something Kurlansky seems quite aware of when it comes to how history is generally presented by war-inclined governments, but doesn't mention in relation to his own presentation of it.)
February 6, 2021
There are so many things packed in here that I had NEVER heard about! Why aren't we talking more about all of these peace activists?
Anyway, as someone ideologically committed to nonviolence, I was already on board with the general argument of the book. Though its somewhat polemical nature was sometimes off-putting, and definitely would be for someone less sold on its argument.
I want to read books on all of the different people and historical moments that Kurlansky mentions throughout this slim volume, which I suppose is a good thing. And I'd love a more rigorous, academic treatment of nonviolence. This is a good primer and very readable for providing an alternative view on war in the US and some other places.
Anyway, as someone ideologically committed to nonviolence, I was already on board with the general argument of the book. Though its somewhat polemical nature was sometimes off-putting, and definitely would be for someone less sold on its argument.
I want to read books on all of the different people and historical moments that Kurlansky mentions throughout this slim volume, which I suppose is a good thing. And I'd love a more rigorous, academic treatment of nonviolence. This is a good primer and very readable for providing an alternative view on war in the US and some other places.
September 16, 2020
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?
January 15, 2021
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.
All in all, though, a highly-recommended read for our troubled world.
July 8, 2025
Nonviolence is an important ideal. I wish this book gave more examples of how to carry out active nonviolence. There are many examples of success though. It is important to remember that a nonviolent movement loses its efficacy once it becomes violent.
"The answer to the abuses of state was not to participate."
Thank you for reading!
"The answer to the abuses of state was not to participate."
Thank you for reading!
May 14, 2021
A page-turning and well researched take on nonviolence. My greatest takeaway is that violence is a lack of creativity.
January 12, 2019
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?
December 31, 2020
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.
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.
May 4, 2012
If we want peace, we will have to be willing to suffer for it, and maybe even die for it, but isn't that what we say about "freedom," and that the cost is worth it? Why are we willing to kill others in war, even if that means we have a good chance of getting hurt or killed ourselves, but we are unwilling to refuse to kill, if that means we might be hurt or killed? The human mind is a strange thing. Kurlansky does a terrific job of pointing out not just the suffering of war, but the absurdity of it, and the deception behind it. Not that you didn't already know that. But the value here is that he backs up his assertions with myriad examples from history, and shows that the ideas of nonviolence have been around a lot longer than Gandhi. He exposes the state -- any state -- for what it is, by explaining why those who are committed to nonviolence are and have always been its greatest enemies. He even questions conventional wisdom about the American Revolution, the necessity of World War II, and the arms race that supposedly brought down the Berlin Wall. A terrific tonic for the constant war glorification in our culture today. Other authors might take a more religious approach to the questions, whereas Kurlansky makes an argument from the practical perspective: It works. It is the only thing that works. From whatever angle you see it, only light can drive out the darkness.
August 25, 2010
As I waited for our '03 Honda Civic to get serviced today, I finished reading, Nonviolence: The History of A Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky. And, I must say that this is a great read! I love reading history, so maybe it's just me, but I really enjoyed this book. Kurlansky is accessible and does a good job of representing the history of nonviolence throughout history. The book is fairly short, so he does not go into too much detail but enough to entice the imagination of those that dream of a way of life without violence. I would recommend this to just about anyone simply because the side of history of told here is often not heard. This book is actually a history of violence rather than nonviolence. Kurlansky tells the other side of that history; of those that were opposed to and withstood violence throughout recorded time. But the violence seems ever present unfortunately. But those I would recommend this to the most would be my fellow Christians. A decent amount of ink is used on telling another side of the history of the Church. It is inspiring and frustrating. But it ultimately gave me hope that those of us that follow Jesus today yet don't agree with the Christendom machine are not alone. Pick it up.
February 8, 2011
A 4.5 star effort really but I'm rounding it up to 5 as 1/2 stars are not allowed. In a short book, Mark Kurlansky manages to pack a lot of history, especially as it pertains to the history of nonviolence. The breadth covered is quite large, from ancient Christians to more modern figures like Gandhi and MLK. A key premise is that often religions start out with nonviolence at their core but once the religions are co-opted/adopted by the state/monarchy, violence seems to become part of the religion. Kurlansky details the journey of Christianity and Islam through this process, which I found very enlightening. There are 25 "lessons" about nonviolence that are listed at the end of the book; most of these are great topics for discussion. All in all, a very informative, thought provoking and entertaining book.
August 30, 2025
I gave this book a 5/5 rating, which might imply that I think it’s a perfect book. It’s not, especially if you’re expecting some semblance of the detached objectivity that you might expect from a book with “history” in its subtitle. Kurlansky is definitely sympathetic to his subject, and there are moments where I think a bit less enthusiasm might have actually strengthened the case he’s trying to make, which revolves around the relationship between violence and power, and the unique potential that non-violent resistance has to affect real change. Still, as someone who is already on his side, I found the book exciting and invigorating. He does a lovely job telling the story of the movement and showing the moral bankruptcy of the forces that have opposed it. The 25 Lessons are genuinely profound.
January 19, 2017
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.
January 16, 2013
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.
October 9, 2011
This book really disappointed me. It was a great concept, but the execution wasn't that great. A few interesting characters show up - Mozi, a pacifist opponent of Confucius, and some groups in the Reformation/Early-American era - but the general narrative lacked cohesion and vision. Not really worth the read.
March 5, 2012
The author spends more time describing violence in religion, and decrying people who have used religion to violent ends, than on actually studying the application of non-violence. Not what I was looking for.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews