Kurlansky Nonviolence

The way that Kurlansky organizes Nonviolence makes it very difficult for the reader to fully understand his objective. Kurlansky provides factual reasoning for believing in nonviolence; however, he fails to provide a solution for current violence. The book gives many situations where nonviolence was attempted, but failed, this makes it unclear to the reader how nonviolence will be accomplished in the future. I support the idea of nonviolence, but even after reading this book, I feel as if there is no way it would ever be successful; the world is too reliant on violence. Although Nonviolence is a fantastic idea, Kurlansky’s organization, and strategy of the book overall causes too much confusion for the reader. Kurlansky’s arrangement …show more content…
I am confused as to why Kurlansky is trying to present nonviolence as a “dangerous idea” if he is encouraging it. He says: “It is always easier to promote war than peace, easier to end the peace than end the war, because peace is so fragile and war is durable” (76). This quote is a very strong point proving how nonviolence could be a dangerous idea. If an end is put to peace, what will people resort to in order to replace violence? But, I believe that in order to clarify this Kurlansky should have included ideas for solutions within the …show more content…
The evidence provided in this book was interpreted differently then I think Kurlansky intended it to be. The book provided valid information, although I don’t believe it was introduced or explained in the correct manner. I appreciate a book that has an ending with a set purpose, something specific that the reader is supposed to be left thinking. When I finished Nonviolence, I was unsure of what that “leaving thought” was. Perhaps Kurlansky’s goal for Nonviolence was to make the reader strongly reconsider nonviolence and its positive effects. Unfortunately for me, I do not think that this goal was completed due to my confusion and incomplete understanding of the desired outcome Kurlansky’s