NonViolence By: Mark Kurlansky

Book Review
By: Rachel Franco

The book I read for this assignment was Nonviolence the history of a dangerous

idea by Mark Kurlansky. When reading the book its main points are about the history of

nonviolence throughout the world but some points mainly in the United States. Then

Kurlansky also gives the reader twenty-five lessons in nonviolence to effect change now

and give readers a course of action. When reading the book the author wants the

reader to get a new view of history and learn more about the actions of nonviolence and

how it has been dealt with and how it is the preferred way to overcome injustice. Also,

this book is very different because it’s against the idea of war but we humans have a

long vast history of war and destruction. He gives the thought and reasoning against

war and makes the reader think about how would we be different if we didn’t have war

and if there were problems we could’ve solved without the use of force.

Mark Kurlansky is the author of this book he is a well-known American Author.

He was born on December 7th, 1948 he has written around thirty-five books a number

of fiction and non-fiction books but he has a general interest in non-fiction. He does

have a bachelor’s degree in Theatre from Butler University in 1970. Another fun fact

about him is that refused to serve in the military. Once the theatre company was going

down he turned to the love of journalism. His book Nonviolence: Twenty-five Lessons

From the History of a Dangerous Idea was the non-fiction winner of the 2007 Dayton

Literary Peace Prize.

 When reading this book it is what it says it is. You learn and read about the

history of nonviolence and where it originated and then you learn about wars throughout

time and instances where nonviolence happened and what were the effects of it. Before

you get into that Mark asks the question “what is nonviolence?” and it is the beginning

of his lesson that there is no proactive word for nonviolence. He also talks about the

world and our knowledge and our “comfort for violence” and how it is used do much and

common unlike the use ow want for nonviolence. Something else I think that is

important that he states are that nonviolence is not the same as pacifism and how that

is treated as a psychological thought rather than nonviolence which is an action.

After talking and making his stance on that he talks about movies through the

religious, political, and cultural history of nonviolence. Within this exploring the rise of

nonviolent philosophies and movements. He talks about the major religions Hinduism,

Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. Within all of these religions, there is a

standard/law/commandment that thou shall not kill. They have believe them to be

something different from it being all living things or just humans and how they are killed.

When moving forward it is made known that after some time even tho it says not to kill

at all there were made justifications through self-defense or when necessary.

It moves into Christianity, especially how there was a point where violence was

supported because it was “in the name of god”. Even though it was taught by one of

their Messiah Jesus that killing was a sin. With the killing of people brought justification

when moving into the crusades it was more common for battles to happen and they

always had there just that it was for god and that what they were doing was the “right

thing” when talking about this Kurlansky brings up his second which when a nation
builds up military it will use it eventually. Ongoing through the history and the

justifications that came along we get into the building and the start of America. He then

goes on and talks about all of the justifications for wrong things such as slavery the

killing of innocent Indians and then the fights between European countries. Throughout

this, he is giving more lessons on nonviolence. With talking about the violence he talks

about the nonviolent movements one of the most inspiring ones to me was of the Maori

people and the Ploughmen. Though they had done nothing at all and were just plowing

the white men were scarred and were fighting for a “war of extermination”. The people

did nothing and even still the majority did nothing when in the face of the danger their

nonviolence and leader Te Whiti, are important in nonviolence.

Kurlansky moves the story to the 20th century and talks about during this time

how there were some of the worst battles in history but there were so many movements

and wants throughout the world for nonviolence. One of the first major points is talking

about WWI and how there weren’t justifications for the war and how it riled people up

and made people upset for the killing of innocent people, and how many turned to

nonviolence. When so many had turned to nonviolence WWII had a lot of backlashes

first off no one stood up to Hitler and took him down when needed but when the US was

asked and debating on joining the majority didn’t wanna go to war but it was changed

due to the attack on pearl harbor. Even after there were many who still were against

going to war and wanted nonviolence and those who were against it went to jail. One of

the points I’ve noticed and mentioned is that those who want to be nonviolent are

ridiculed for their decision.

 Then moving towards the end of the book you get to where he talks about how

war affects people and how it makes people go away from morals and then how the

hard beginnings of this movement has already been complete we just need to continue

the work. Overall then ending with all of the twenty-five lessons he gives for change

today and bringing nonviolence.

Quotes
● “The skillful night is not warlike the skilled strategist is never angry. He who is

skilled in overcoming his enemies does not join the battle.”(page 12)

This was a quote put by the author and it is from Hinduism beliefs. I find

this interesting and important than those who are not in the physical battle

are skilled. This was a key point in nonviolence that those who are more

skillful in overcoming an enemy through nonviolence.

● “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.” (page 25)

This quote was really eye-opening because I’ve never thought about this

but in a lot of the past especially seen with crusaders they were about

nonviolence at one point but then it was taken over by violence and they

were blinded. Then it also made me the question is if that can be applied

to any countries now?

● “In history war is justified as a fight for freedom and how rarely that is the true

goal.”(page 55)
 This quote comes from a response to a quote by Gerrard Winstanley. This

quote though was making me question how many wars could’ve been

prevented by this thought. Also, it’s important to reflect on this for peace

and how when there is war what is the true intention and goal?

● “War and violence were part of a natural order”(page 62)

This quote is something that Thomas Hobbles and John Selden both

believed in and I found it concerning because their thoughts and ideas

were used to help create America’s standards. This was important

because we were built on violence in America and it makes me wonder

what change there needs to be to eliminate it.

● “In the case of the American Revolution, could independence have been

accomplished without warfare?” (page 80)

This question was intriguing to me because in my history classes we only

talk about war and I remember that George Washington said we didn’t

have to win battles we just had to survive. With that, we really just made it

so that Britain had to retreat for how much it cost and they had other

things to attend to so could we have just done it differently without the

violence?

● “History’s greatest lesson is that violence does not resolve disagreement it

always leads to more violence.”

I really like this because it shows that violence is just a cycle and it doesn’t

stop. When you are able to compromise and negotiate you can find the

even ground of peace. (page 85)

 ● “War will disappear only when men shall take no part whatever in violence and

shall be ready to suffer every persecution that their abstention will bring them. It

is the only way to abolish war.” (page 182)

○ This quote was used and it is from a French novelist I think it is important

to look at this and realize this will be the reality of nonviolence. Then it’s

something we will have to do to achieve it.

● “It is always easier to promote war than peace, easier to end peace than end the

war because peace is fragile and war is durable.” (page 76)

○ This quote I found interesting because in history we always see war

propaganda and in the book it makes the point that for some time when

there were peace movies and movements they weren’t published and

those who supported them were put in jail. It is so easy for us to go to war

than it is to be nice to each other and it’s the sad reality.

Overall this book was really interesting and it taught me a lot about history. I learned

some background on historical events and I got a different perspective which was very

interesting. This book can be interesting at times and I don’t care for how it focuses on

the united states a lot at some points I would like to learn about other places in the

world. I also like the lessons it teaches and I would recommend them to others there

were moments where I had to stop and think about how I would answer questions.

Overall it was a well-written book and interesting I would recommend it to others to read

and learn the way I did too.