But to me what's really interesting here is not developing a definition of nonviolence and then going through history to find out what fits that defintion and what doesn't. The interesting question is why so many people choose to misrepresent historical struggles by concealing the violent elements. Nelson Mandela was put in jail for blowing things up. Everyone who does even a minimal amount of research into the history knows this. Why, then, is there such a massive effort on the part of so many left-liberals to misrepresent the struggle against apartheid as wholly nonviolent? That's just one example.

Perhaps another interesting question is: why resistance movements with varying levels of violent activity have never been able to achieve the sorts of gains that seem to me to be so desirable. To stay with the South African example, the difference between wealth of black South Africans and white South Africans is actually greater now than at the end of apartheid.

So now that you've slogged through theory, amuse yourself by reading Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations. The funny part begins with the paragraph starting with "We find greater merit in..." Judge Posner, you so crazy!