Over the last decade there have been quite a number of books published on non-violence action (under a wide range of terminologies: people power, poor people's movements, civil resistance, collective action, etc). A good number of these works start out with the premise that non-violence is the best / only way for political change to occur, and go about crafting arguments rooted largely in that value-based position. I would also suggest that some of these books have misrepresented successful mass movements as being a non-violent movement, to further an argument, when in fact the reality is far more complicated. Although it book me too long to get around to reading it, I was pleasantly surprised with "Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-Violent Action from Gandhi to the Present" (2009), edited by Roberts and Ash. The book is a collection of case studies and is a valuable addition for anyone interested in learning about the diversity of experiences, tactics and outcomes of citizen action. Many of the chapters are not biased by a value-driven objective to advocate for non-violence, many engage with the violent - or threat of violent - action that were present within and alongside other non-violent movements. The book is a dense 400+ pages of cases and can be summarized, but I highlight a few points that stood out for me (particularly in relation to the existing works on the topic):

• "A seemingly general commitment to the avoidance of violence is almost always in fact selective. The history of non-violent action is full of instances of very careful discrimination in judging the phenomenon that has been the subject of so much sweeping generalization - violence. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King recognized some modest legitimate role for force." (p. 13)

• "South African mass resistance in the 1980s was far from strictly non-violent. Suspected African collaborators were killed, demonstrators often threw stones, and erected barricades, and in 1985 militant youths battled with some success to create no-go areas in the townships. Moreover, divisions between the ANC and the Zulu Inkatha movement resulted in serious inter-communal violence. Nevertheless, the South African struggle did overall provide an 'A to Z' of non-violent tactics." (p. 36-37)

• "The historical evidence of India's experience of non-violent civil resistance under the over-arching leadership of Mahatma Gandhi raises crucial issues about this mode of conducting conflict. Perhaps above all it shows that this is a political strategy and technique which, for its outcomes, depends greatly on the historical specificities - the nature of the opponent, the characteristics and beliefs of those who seek to use it, their relations with their clientele and with a wider domestic and international audience, and the encompassing ideological and political environment." (p. 56-57).

• "successful movements normally reflect a combination of favourable environmental changes and the creative efforts of activists to recognize, exploit, and indeed, expand the political opportunities afforded them by broader change processes" (p. 65)

• "The Iranian Revolution - like many others - 'came' from below rather than was 'made' from above. There were no statewide parties, no systematic networks, and no coordinated organizations mobilizing the mass protests, meetings, and strikes. On the contrary, the crowds were often assembled by ad hoc groups, grass-roots organizations, and, at most, informal networks: classmates in high schools, colleges, and seminaries; teenagers in the slums; guild members, shop assistants, and, occasionally, mosque preachers, in the city bazaars." (p. 177)

• "it is incorrect to undervalue the contribution of armed movements to Marco's downfall due to their end-game errors. If that radical pole had not existed Morcos might have been able to inflict greater physical harm on his more moderate political rivals. They may even have survived because Marcos turned his attention to the greater threat" (p. 192)

Highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the practice and experience of civil resistance. The is the most comprehensive set of cases I am aware of, and one of the more nuanced books addressing the relationship between violence and non-violence within these movements.

An article in the New York Times in 2015 provoked Michael Truscello and Ajamu Nangwaya to bring together the volume: "Why Don't the Poor Rise Up? Organizing the Twenty-First Century Resistance" (2017). This book is divided into two sections, one on the Global North and another on the Global South, and is an "anthology of radical perspectives on contemporary struggles" (p. 2). The book is a counter narrative to the idea suggested in the New York Times that the poor are not rising up. "The title is both challenging and provocative, in the sense that it is at once a question and an assumption. But is it true that the poor do not rise up? Or do we simply not recognize their resistance and rebellion?" (p. 1). In documenting stories of resistance, the authors seek to address an apparent gap: "We do not have enough knowledge and information on the diverse struggles waged around the world, the wealth of experiences gained, and the lessons learnt from them and numerous victories achieved. Consequently, we do not celebrate them nor gain inspiration from them to wage new struggles. The first-hand experiences and contributions shared in this collection serve as a radical attempt to reverse this trend" (p. 3).

There are eighteen examples, well beyond summary in a brief post. In general, I had hoped the book would have delved deeper. Many of the chapters are brief descriptive summaries of challenges faced and responses. Readers familiar with this literature might be left wanting. However, for those who do wonder 'why the poor do not rise up', this is a collection worth reading. Two thought provoking quotes:

From Praba Pilar and Alex Wilson: "An early example of these confining constructs was the "Inter Caetera," a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 that laid out the justification for the Doctrine of Discovery. It established that Christian nations had a divine right (based on the bible) to grant themselves legal ownerships of any "unoccupied" lands (where unoccupied was defined as the absence of Christian people) and dominion over any people on those lands. A current example of these confining constructs is the salvation narrative unconsciously reproduced by many in the white Left when approach Indigenous and other non-European communities as allies but present solutions that have been developed in isolation, are paternalistic, and/or are inappropriate to the context. Salvation narratives are often seen as benign, but they are not. hey reflect and perpetuate the early justification for colonization, i.e., that "God had directed [Europeans] to bring civilized ways and education and religion to Indigenous Peoples and to exercise paternalism and guardianship powers over them'" (p. 35)

From Gussai Sheikheldin: "States and markets normalize the exploitation and oppression of many in society through the pretext of order and justice… becoming aware of a phenomenon does not automatically imply that one will care to transform it, so understanding structural sources of oppression in society does not necessarily mean that one will seek to combat them. That is objectively true, but we should also be mindful that any genuine care is unlikely to happen without understanding. Then there's the difference between understanding on the one hand, and 'consciousness' (understanding and caring) on the other." (p. 233-235).