|
Kurlansky is enamoured with thinking himself "dangerous". Kurlansky repeatedly distinguishes his definition of "non-violence" from pacifism. Kurlansky ignores history that does not fit his thesis and twists what history he does use in order for it to fit. If Eisenhower had not called it in, non-violent civil rights leaders could not have gotten black southerners into white state colleges.
More often, non-violence has led to slaughter and not to peace. If you think this book makes a good case, read opposing views, and then see if you still agree. In fact, he confuses the successful exercise of power by states in his age to protect their citizens (such as Kurlansky) with a lack of need for that power. That's not to say that King, Parks and others did not play an equally valuable role. It turns out his non-violence includes destroying that which belongs to someone else and calling the owner's reaction immoral.
One example: The National Guard desegregated the South. They persuaded the white leaders who had armed forces (such as Kennedy) not to ignore the injustice and to use those armed forces, such as the National Guard and Federal Marshals, to stop the injustice. "Non-violence" is not a nuanced book, but rather a self-righteous ode to an idea that has been tried and failed repeatedly throughout history, succeeding only in rare circumstances when used against morally advanced and physically weak opponents. Southern thugs were brave against defenseless blacks. It's really a childish, narcissitic worldview, with little to no nuance to match its outsized regard for itself.
The title tells it all - "a dangerous idea". They were not so brave against an armed militia. JFK and his attorney general brother needed some persuading.
I like Kurlansky's other books and looked forward to reading this one. It even started out promisingly. But it quickly turned into a liberal diatribe that was typically simplistic of USA/Western/Capitalism. I am very open to the idea that we can find better ways of dealing with conflict than we currently do, but this book does not tell us how.
History has demonstrated that non-violence can be effective when the oppressive force is not composed of subhuman animals. Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords -Benjamin FranklinWhile I would agree that while non-violence is "principled" it has certainly not shown itself to be effective against the kind of monsters that have plagued the most gruesome chapters of human history. The Ukrainian Kulak's on the other hand "non-violently" destroyed crops instead of having them appropriated and were treated to one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century. Or ask the residents of Lidice or Lezáky Czechoslovakia how well non-violence worked when the Germans razed the towns and had every occupant shot or sent to a concentration camp.I wont even go into Kurlansky's theories on the second world was, as I could write page on how terrible wrong he is on this point, but a good illustration is that Kurlansky's resorted to the scholarship of David Irving to buttress his thoughts on the bombing of Dresden. So is "non-violence" a dangerous idea. The protestors at Tiananmen square "non-violently" staged democracy rallies and were steamrolled by tanks.
You cannot shame the shameless. Ghandi and King were fortunate that they had operated in the framework of liberal western democracies, and while they certainly faced organized opposition to their respective movements, the mainstream opposition was reasonable and largely moral (even if their actions were not always such). A government that places no values on human life and has absolutely no morals will do anything they need to hold onto power and eliminate their opposition (USSR, Khmer Rouge, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Hussein's Iraq). The Eastern European example that Kurlansky uses was not an example of non-violence working so much as it was an example of an oppressive force that was not as willing as it once was to liquidate an entire population to keep them in line. Had the solidarity movement began in 1947, Poland would have suffered the same fate of the Ukraine. Kurlansky's central thesis that violence only plays into the hands of an oppressive state because it is easier to massacre violent protestors than non-violent ones is nice and all, but as totalitarian governments control all media outlets and all propaganda organs, they can and do attach any narrative to the events that suit their purposes.
Only for those who practice it in the face of tyranny.
Am I saying it's a bad book. Kurlansky's rather small book (only about 180pgs) shows a number of examples of nonviolence, from secular and religious influences, that are presented in a fluid manner, not done in a text-book fashion so you won't feel like you're reading a how-to book.Out of all of the books I have read on the subject of nonviolence, I didn't really pick up on anything I hadn't already read or learned about elsewhere, however, this would make a good PRIMER for those new to the philosophy of nonviolence. If you're interested in some real meat and potatos, look elsewhere (Muste, Zinn, Sharp, Wink, McCarthy). Definitely not, I even plan to keep it in my library. It was well written, and my only wish is that he decides to write a more in-depth book in the future.See my Listmania list for all of the books I have read on nonviolence.
Excellent. A must-read for anyone who is interested in having a future.
|
