Mr. P. Briody 2008-10-05

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I read one review that bewailed the advantage taken by British soldiers, of less well armed adversaries. How silly is that, if I were fighting I should request, nay, demand, any advantage over the enemy.(Compare the War in Iraq) We are a silly generation...Empire was good and bad,, mostly, the positive benefits have come from the British form...so swallow that if you can get it past your pc spot-a-meter. This book does redress the 'orientalism' garbage of recent years but it has its flaws too. Still, worth reading. 'Defending the West' is worth reading in tandem with Ferguson.

Kolleen Bouchane 2008-05-20

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. There are some interesting and colorful bits... British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." However, Ferguson has a dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects." Whaaa????

Ferguson's Empire ends abruptly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. This is instead a call for a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

CJ 2008-04-26

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

Ferguson's book titled "Empire" sets out to discuss the rise and fall of the British Empire in less than 400 pages, a large percentage of which are pictures. As you can guess from that sentence, he doesn't do a very good job in my opinion convincing me of anything. I will admit that the illustrations that were picked are excellent, and he generally hits all the major points along the empire trajectory, producing some interesting quotes from the various eras. Unfortunately, this is too much of a coffee table book to produce serious discussion. His central thesis, that the empire was superior to the alternatives at the time, is an interesting one, but unfortunately I cannot say that he backed it up that well. This is worth a library checkout, to read through and examine the pictures.

Baby Cromwell 2008-01-29

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of what they believed to be an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. Even thousands upon thousands of decent, honest Irishmen came to fight for Empire. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age (and I genuinely mean that with no hint of insult, but it's a fact). The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

And guess what else? INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT IN ALL WARS AND CONFLICTS. Just ask the Americans about Viet Nam and Iraq or any country who've pulled a trigger. Who of you will be the first to volunteer your own onto the war crimes stage? Exactly.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness are pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Scholar 2007-09-27

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Ferguson's EMPIRE is well-written, like all of his work. It is not a comprehensive look at the details of expansion and conquest--there are other books readily available for that--but instead looks at the empire as a process. Thus, he focuses on key figures and locations, primarily India and Africa. One gets a good sense of who was behind the imperial drive, and what the drive for empire was all about. It is, however, a little bit too "pro-Empire." To be sure, Ferguson acknowledges that imperialism had its nasty side (especially against the Boers). However, we don't get much of the violence and cruelty that characterized British expansion and conquest, which very much should have been included. Also, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland are barely touched on. Its still worth the read for sure, but must be used as a framework around which much else should be read.