Rating: 
Summary: Arrogance and hubris is alive and well in Britain
Review: Mr. Ferguson attempts to make a case for international benefit from the British empire and fails miserably. Case in point--the empire should be lauded for contributing 5 mil soldiers to the Allied cause in WWII, almost as many as the Britain proper. He misses the point, however, which speaks to his narrowness of mind. Whereas a country like the US could enter WWII on its own terms, countries like India that supplied troops had no such choice. Somehow the belief is that India would not have joined the war effort had it not been for British rule. Maybe-maybe not--but isn't that a decision left to the Indians and not the British? The thesis that the British empire was the only means to some of the contributions to modern society in these countries is rubbish. Thankfully I borrowed this book from the library, so that I don't contribute any royalties to this author.
Rating: 
Summary: A Very Pukka Look At The British Empire
Review: Niall Ferguson has made a name for himself as the historian of counterfactuals, or imaginative looks at "history as it could have been." He was the editor of Virtual History, which provides alternate scenarios of past events, and the author of The Pity of War, a look at World War I which concluded that the world would be immensely better off today if the British had stayed out in August 1914 and let the Germans win. Now in Empire Ferguson has given us a history of the British Empire which any nineteenth century imperialist would pronounce to be pukka, or first rate.Basically Ferguson argues that the British Empire was a positive contribution to the world in that it gave its colonial possessions traditions like self-government and personal liberties. Ferguson does not maintain that there were no abuses of power or that none of the indigeneous peoples ruled by British officials were ever mistreated, but he does believe that on balance, more good was done than bad. He makes this argument most strongly in covering the twentieth century, when he points out that the British were much better colonial rulers than the Germans or Japanese were. Most of Empire's readers will undoubtedly agree with this point, but many will also wonder why it was necessary for the British to colonize these peoples in the first place. Ferguson is straightforward, saying that the original reason for imperialism was greed for products like tea. More highflown objectives like ending the slave trade and converting "primitive" areas to civilization and Christianity came much later,and never diverted attention for very long from the basic quest for wealth. Ferguson is also direct in saying that the major reason for the end of the Empire after World War II was that it was simply too expensive to keep going. The last pages are especially timely in that Ferguson speculates on the role of a revived imperialism of the twenty-first century in the hands of Britain's most famous former colony, the United States. One of Empire's major flaws is its tendency to give short shrift to the cultures which came under British power. The Mughals of India are barely discussed, and Qing Dynasty China rates even less attention. Ferguson's basic attitude is that those cultures were no better, and in some ways much worse, than the British who came to dominate them. For another view of Britain's supposed superiority in governing Asian territories, you could read Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, which chronicles British ineptitude in dealing with famine in India and China. The book is well written and beautifully illustrated. I hope that the British TV series it companions will eventually be shown on PBS. Like the book, it should be controversial and thought-provoking.
Rating:
Summary: Ultimate Victory of the Disintegrated British Empire
Review: Niall Ferguson has written a well-balanced portrait of the rise and fall of the British Empire. Ferguson does not downplay at all the sins of the British administration in its colonies: e.g., eager pursuit of slavery in the 18th century, brutal crushing of failed rebellions against British rule in the 19th and 20th centuries and mismanagement of famines in the 19th century. However, the British Empire played a key role in the spread of the ideas that have conquered the world: free markets, democracy, Anglo-Saxon culture ... and Pax Britannica (now Pax Americana). As Michael Mandelbaum reminds us in his masterpiece about the ideas that conquered the world, free markets tend to promote democracy and enrich most of their economic agents over time. And democracies are inclined to conduct peaceful foreign policies. Before WWI, Britain was the most fervent advocate of free trade. Furthermore, British imperial power relied on the massive export of capital and people. The U.S., heir and adopter of many best practices of the British Empire, however, became a convert to free trade only after WWI. Furthermore, unlike the British Empire, the U.S., currently at the apex of its power and influence, is a massive importer of capital and people. Ferguson rightly points out that the British Empire had a self-liquidating character. The British Empire learned from the American Independence that granting self-government to the most advanced colonies (read White Dominions) was key to its survival. Nonetheless, the British Empire was clearly ambivalent about self-government beyond its White Dominions. The British Empire understood that this ambivalence was not even sustainable: e.g., India was granted Dominion status in the 1930s. The crippling price that the British Empire paid in defeating the partisans of Illiberalism in both world wars accelerated its inevitable decline due to a lack of resources to meet the growing challenges and opportunities of globalization. Ferguson also reminds his audience that the failed de-colonization in many Third World countries clearly shows that the achievements of the British Empire cannot be taken for granted. Although guns, germs and steel have played an important role in the fates of these human societies as Jared Diamond rightly points out in his best seller, civil wars and lawless, corrupt governments are today the ultimate culprits for their failure. Without free markets, a country is condemned to remain at the doorstep of the world and sink in both oblivion and irrelevance unless it is a dangerous failed state. Without the exercise or at least the threat of (soft) power, there cannot be globalization that ultimately benefits most human beings. The network of bases and informal spheres of influence are some of the tools that the U.S. has at its disposal to further the advancement of the current liberal hegemony that cannot be taken for granted. Sometimes, the temporary occupation of the most dangerous failed states is key to facilitate the ultimate advent of democracy that Winston Churchill nicely describes as the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Rating:
Summary: Ultimate Victory of the Disintegrated British Empire
Review: Niall Ferguson has written a well-balanced portrait of the rise and fall of the British Empire. Ferguson does not downplay at all the sins of the British administration in its colonies: e.g., eager pursuit of slavery in the 18th century, brutal crushing of failed rebellions against British rule in the 19th and 20th centuries and mismanagement of famines in the 19th century. However, the British Empire played a key role in the spread of the ideas that have conquered the world: free markets, democracy, Anglo-Saxon culture ... and Pax Britannica (now Pax Americana). As Michael Mandelbaum reminds us in his masterpiece about the ideas that conquered the world, free markets tend to promote democracy and enrich most of their economic agents over time. And democracies are inclined to conduct peaceful foreign policies. Before WWI, Britain was the most fervent advocate of free trade. Furthermore, British imperial power relied on the massive export of capital and people. The U.S., heir and adopter of many best practices of the British Empire, however, became a convert to free trade only after WWI. Furthermore, unlike the British Empire, the U.S., currently at the apex of its power and influence, is a massive importer of capital and people. Ferguson rightly points out that the British Empire had a self-liquidating character. The British Empire learned from the American Independence that granting self-government to the most advanced colonies (read White Dominions) was key to its survival. Nonetheless, the British Empire was clearly ambivalent about self-government beyond its White Dominions. The British Empire understood that this ambivalence was not even sustainable: e.g., India was granted Dominion status in the 1930s. The crippling price that the British Empire paid in defeating the partisans of Illiberalism in both world wars accelerated its inevitable decline due to a lack of resources to meet the growing challenges and opportunities of globalization. Ferguson also reminds his audience that the failed de-colonization in many Third World countries clearly shows that the achievements of the British Empire cannot be taken for granted. Although guns, germs and steel have played an important role in the fates of these human societies as Jared Diamond rightly points out in his best seller, civil wars and lawless, corrupt governments are today the ultimate culprits for their failure. Without free markets, a country is condemned to remain at the doorstep of the world and sink in both oblivion and irrelevance unless it is a dangerous failed state. Without the exercise or at least the threat of (soft) power, there cannot be globalization that ultimately benefits most human beings. The network of bases and informal spheres of influence are some of the tools that the U.S. has at its disposal to further the advancement of the current liberal hegemony that cannot be taken for granted. Sometimes, the temporary occupation of the most dangerous failed states is key to facilitate the ultimate advent of democracy that Winston Churchill nicely describes as the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Rating:
Summary: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Review: Niall Ferguson is one of our best historians and everyone with an interest in the grand scope of History should take some time to read this book. You might not agree with everthing here, but Ferguson makes his points eloquently and has a knack for finding just the right period quotes. Contrary to what others might say, he DOES NOT gloss over the downside of the British Empire, but intead presents a well-rounded picture, including all of the greed and savagery. I wish he had spent some time dealing with the British impact on China and Latin America during the nineteenth century, but this is still an excellent survey. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining yet Limited
Review: Niall Ferguson's book is a well-written and lively account of the British Empire from its earliest beginnings to its bitter end. The book is an easy pleasure to read and is highly recommended. There is much humour, sarcasm, and wit. Many interesting tales are told and much fact is unburdened in an unassuming way.
The book is, however, superficial, perhaps as a result of being lay in orientation and so wide in scope, and there is a curious anachronistic form of moral assessment throughout that is questionable. Ferguson makes many points that are extremely tenuous. His focus on the Rothschild banking house seems out of place and greatly exaggerated (no doubt due to the author's own academic interest with this extended family). His views of the American revolution are rather unfair and overly cynical (perhaps influenced by that old-school British resentment over the matter). His presentation of seminal events like the take-over of Egypt and the Boer War are unidimensional and very shallow, ignoring their multicausal, accidental, and irrational determinants (read, inter alia, Efraim Karsh on the former and Iain R. Smith on the latter for more in-depth discussion of these matters).
Ferguson's political aim in the book -- to alert readers to the reality of a supposed present-day American empire and to make them more amenable to its existence as a potential boon to the world in the same way as the British empire had once been -- is laudable in being politically out of step with so much of left-wing academia. The question remains as to whether this political aim is misguided (British misunderstanding of the United States and its ethos) or well-founded (British worldliness and good advice). A good issue to debate.
Rating:
Summary: Niall Wants His Empire Back
Review: Niall says the British were 'wrong' but not all that bad, really. As politically unfavorable as that remark might seem, it's probably true. There were indeed benefits that British rule brought to the corners of the world it controlled that they benefit from to this day (representative government, railroads, etc.). You do get the idea that the author is straining very hard to contain the fact that he's basically a bitchy British nationalist that seethes over the U.S. being the dominant world power at this point in history. A good brief overview though, particularly if you can sort through the prejudice of it's author.
Rating:
Summary: Asking an ex-colonial about what he thinks
Review: of the British Empire, or apologists for the British Empire, is liking asking a lamp-post what it thinks of dogs. I just dislike these post-modernist reinterpretators of history, who can afford to euphemestically look at the systematic degradation of cultures and exploitation of populations, and go "Hmmm..., but look at the bright side". So, here I am doing what the British have done for so many years - practicing random acts of nastiness. 1 star, buddy, 1 star for you.
Rating:
Summary: Lessons from Telling Stats
Review: Quite apart from whether Ferguson is right - that America should be viewed as an empire, or should now build one if America isn't already - is the interesting question: Can America extend its imperial reach (or "imperial overstretch") now, based on the British experience? I'm arguing that America "doesn't do empire" - if America was not interested in it half a century ago when it was so much more powerful than it is now, it probably isn't interested today. This despite the fact that America's relative strength, both military and economic, far surpasses the British at its height. (Ferguson is wont to point this out. He may have added that there are no competitors with America as the British had then, such as the French.) There is however another way to look at the question: What is America's pain tolerance for casualties overseas? Here are some figures, all rounded or approximate, but good enough for reflection: (More precise figures are available from the "American Almanac - Statistical Abstract of the United States.") In the Revolutionary War, America lost over 4,000 lives (i.e., deaths) out of a prewar population of under 4 million. Rate: over 0.1% Civil War, 500,000 deaths; prewar pop: 31 m. Rate: 1.6% WW2, over 400,000 deaths; approx. pop: 140 m. Rate: 0.29% Vietnam, 60,000 deaths; approx. pop: 200 m. Rate: 0.032% Gulf War 1: 300 deaths; approx. pop: 250 m. Rate: 0.00012% Gulf War 2 over 300 deaths (& counting); approx. pop: 290 m. Rate: ? Using the American Revolution as a "benchmark," one can see that the most painful war in American history is the Civil War - one death in sixty people. World War II was much less painful, at one fifth the rate of the Civil War. And Vietnam? The death rate there was about one-tenth of World War II. The least painful by far was Gulf War 1, where the death rate was one-thousandth that of the Revolution. No wonder most Americans reflect on the First Gulf War with comfort. Therefore, in terms of death rate alone, Vietnam should not rank among the most painful of wars. Yet for some reason most Americans do not look back on Vietnam with pride. This war seems far more controversial, bitter and painful than even the Civil War. What is the problem? I think in modern times Americans' tolerance for battle deaths and overseas casualties has DECREASED over time, in proportion to the country's rising wealth and stature. (I can't decide if this correlation is causal, and if so, why.) Vietnam was also a moral dilemma in ways that even the Civil War had not been (at least for the majority of the people). Given this low and still decreasing tolerance of casualties, no wonder Americans are already talking out loud about "an exit strategy" from Iraq - even though if the the death rate is one per day, this war will still rank very low in relation to the size of America's total population of almost 300 million souls. The trouble (if this is "trouble" at all) is that Americans do not now compare the dead Americans boys and girls in Iraq to other major wars in America's past. Their yardstick is the death rate of the First Gulf War! So, every extra death (over the deaths of Gulf War 1) feels like a national tragedy. I'm not suggesting whether this is a good thing or bad. All I can say is that, judging from the numbers, America's pain tolerance appears to be much thinner than it used to be.......and much much thinner than Britain's tolerance in the 19th century had been. (But then America's tolerance was also much higher in the same period.) And so far I'm restricting my discussion to Iraq only, not counting Afghanistan, North Korea and other hot spots, where the casualties, or potential casualties, add to the whole load. If all this bodes well for building an empire according to the British model, which Ferguson is arguing in this book, then I fail to see how so. If America is already an empire - which he may be right to point out is the kindest and most positive of all empires in world history - then please tell me by what extent is he willing to stretch his definition of "empire"?
Rating: 
Summary: The British Invasion!!!
Review: The British Empire is one of those subjects about which one could spend a lifetime reading. For those interested in a good general overview of the Empire to gain a solid understanding of it but who do not want their heads to explode with every small detail, then EMPIRE is a good book to pick.
Niall Ferguson covers all the bases, including how and why the Empire began, how the British sustained such a massive empire over one-quarter of the globe in extremely different cultures, as well as the reasons for the Empire's ultimate decline. The British were not the first Europeans to try their hands at empire and, for some time, they were not even very successful at it. Only by studying their more successful competitors did the British assume the predominant global position.
The Empire's influence is traced throughout the world, including North America, Africa, India and Australia. The economic and military capacities that grew and sustained the Empire are examined, as are the military benefits of the Empire. As one example, it was interesting to read how the Dutch initially had a far more successful empire than the British even though by any objective measure, i.e. sea power, population, geographic advantage, the British should have had the upper hand. The solution was in the field of economics. The Dutch had created financial systems allowing for the growth of an empire whereas the British were hobbled by more rudimentary economic systems. By emulating Dutch economics, the British were able to pull ahead.
The strength of this book is that Ferguson focuses not merely on the negative or brutal aspects of empire, as is the vogue among so many of the educated elite, but on the positive as well. It is noteworthy that those countries that are among the most successful and affluent today, such as the U.S., Australia and Canada, have their roots within the British Empire. This is true even in non-Anglo societies. Is there any country as poor yet as civilized as India? Ferguson makes the powerful argument that this can be traced to social institutions imported by the British into other societies, such as the rule of law, free markets, representative assemblies and even the concept of liberty itself. Although these institutions may have been imperfectly practiced, the seeds were nonetheless imported by the British and were thereafter able to flourish. For all the imperfections and even nastiness that may be attributable to British rule, it is difficult to imagine any other avenue by which this could have been achieved.
Ferguson also reminds us that the choice facing the world was often not between the British Empire and no empire at all. Rather the choice was between competing empires, most of which were far, far darker than the British variant and which would have left far less autonomy to their subjects. This issue came to the fore with the rise of Hitler's Germany when the British presence around the world contributed significantly to the defeat of totalitarianism. The price paid for this was the weakening of Great Britain itself which set the stage for numerous colonies to gain their independence.
For a book to merely provide a good history often makes it worth reading. Ferguson has achieved this. Yet he has achieved more. He has re-evaluated the British Empire when imperialism is viewed in the West as intrinsically bad in its entirety. The cold hard fact that many people may not like to hear is that anyone who truly cherishes freedom owes a debt - a very big debt - to British imperialism. For this, EMPIRE deserves to be read.
| 
