Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World (2015) - Plot & Excerpts
This book is bizarre. It’s a sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde book. On the one hand, it’s extremely well-written, and tells a very complex historical narrative in a lucid and compelling manner, something that is quite difficult to do. It is also very honest and up-front about the greed, oppression, and exploitation upon which the British Empire was founded, and by which it was more often than not sustained. And yet......the introduction and conclusion feel like they were written for another book entirely. A book that was not honest about the greed, oppression, and exploitation of the British Empire, or perhaps a book by Dick Cheney. After telling a tale that leaves you disgusted with the evils of the British Empire (even though, to be sure, there was much good and much repentance as well), and himself admitting that these things were evil and oppressive (and indeed, trying to construct a weak defense: “Well, didn’t we gain absolution by sacrificing our empire in fighting the Japanese and Germans?”....only problem is that Britain was not trying to sacrifice her empire in fighting them, she was hoping to hold on to it.), Ferguson concludes by telling us that the Empire was on the whole a good thing, and indeed, so much so, that we’d be screwed without it, and the US needs to imitate it. Hang on a minute...what?? I’ve tried to reconstruct the logic of the conclusion, and it just doesn’t work. See, in order to prove that the Empire was on balance a good thing for the world, Ferguson would need to show either that the countries dominated by the Empire were better off with it than they would’ve been without it, or that, though they were worse off, the dominators gained so much at their expense that, by a sort of aggregate-happiness meaure, it was worth it. The latter is of course morally reprehensible, so Ferguson doesn’t attempt it. The former, however, is extremely difficult to show, because it relies on hypotheticals...do we really know how these nations would’ve been governed if the Empire had not taken them over? No. Then we do not know how well off they might have been without it. So Ferguson has set himself a hard task, and the only evidence he offers is a smattering of fairly selective economic statistics. These fail on three counts: 1) as just mentioned, they cannot in fact prove that what in fact happened was better than what would otherwise have happened, since we don’t know what that might have been, 2) they are selective enough that we cannot be persuaded that nearly all of the colonized countries profited, only some, and even if all did, we do not know if that was due to a few people getting really rich at the expense of everyone else, or not, 3) economic well-being is only one measure of well-being. Ferguson has such an annoyingly modern econidolatrous mind that he fails to even consider that demonstrating increased GDP does not ipso facto demonstrate a better world.Now, even if Ferguson did demonstrate that the Empire was on balance a good thing for the world, that is no argument that it was a morally good thing, or something that should be repeated, unless you’re a utilitarian. After all, as Ferguson admits, some pretty rough stuff had to be done in order to bring about this better world of free trade and globalization. Oh, but maybe that was just because they were rough folks--we could do Empire better now, without all the brutality and oppression, right? Well, Ferguson is too smart to take that route. He admits that the better world order of globalization that we now have could not have come through peaceful means--it required the sword, it required the hard iron edge of empire. But apparently Ferguson is a blatant utilitarian. Near the very end, he cites a speech by Tony Blair shortly after 9/11, talking about the need to bring security to a conflict-ridden world and spread freedom and democracy and all that rot. And then Ferguson very shrewdly points out that what Blair is really saying, in somewhat glossed-over language, is Victorian imperialist rhetoric: “we need to go in by force and replace bad governments with ones we like better so that we can open nations up to trade with our economies.” At this point I’m cheering Ferguson on, right? Yeah, Ferguson, way to read between the lines! Way to debunk all the fancy rhetoric! Way to show Blair and Bush for the imperialist jerks they really are! But then Ferguson is like, “Yeah, Blair has the right idea. Only problem is that he’s naive about how much military muscle it will take to do all this, military muscle only the US has. And the problem with the US is that they’re too afraid to use it.” Or, to quote him precisely, “The weak still need the strong, and the strong still need an orderly world, a world in which the efficient and well-governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth. All of this sounds eminently desirable.” The US “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.”So, according to Ferguson, bring on “Anglobalization” 2.0! I can only hope the American people do not warm to the imperial project as readily as their British predecessors did, and as readily as this Oxford don seems still to do.I hate to give it only three stars, because, as a historical exposition, it's 4 or 5 stars. But given that he fails utterly at what he claims to be setting out to do, I really can't give it more than 3.
Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII. Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.Britan also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders and numerous independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that in the end the British empire was a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.
What do You think about Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World (2015)?
An entertaining account of British Imperial history16 April 2010tThis book is brilliant. I first learnt of the author, Professor Niall Ferguson, when I watched the series called 'The Ascent of Money' and then read the book that the series was based upon. So, when I saw this book in the bookstore it was an automatic purchase.tLike 'The Ascent of Money' Professor Feguson deals with a complex topic in an easy to read and very engaging way. In fact, the book reads more like a novel than a dry and dull history book. This it goes to demonstrate that history is much, much more than simply a collection of dates and dead people. In fact, when put forward as such, history plays out like a story that not even the greatest writer could create from his head (and I can assert to that, not that I consider myself a great writer).tAnyway, what did I learn from this book? I say that because I do not believe that a book is worth reading unless you learn something from it. First of all,I discovered that Britain ruled the world from the Indian Subcontinent. India was indeed the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, which is why they fought tooth and nail to keep it. I also learnt that because of its empire Britain was no match for any other budding world power. When you take into account the resources that it was able to draw upon there was no way that Napoleon or the Kaiser, or even Hitler, had any chance of defeating it. However, it is also true that if, at the turn of the 20th Century, you said that in 50 years the British Empire would be no more, you would have been laughed at (and indeed, that was something that Winston Churchill did say). Yet, it turned out that way. Despite winning World War II, the British Empire did not survive the war.tFinally, while I am not a fan of imperialism, and indeed not a fan of American Imperialism, we must always consider the alternatives, and this is something that India did in World War II. Britain, as indeed America, are not perfect, but if the alternatives are Nazism, Imperial Japan, or Stalinist Russia, then in the end, the British, and now the American, empires are the much better alternative.
—David Sarkies
I was attracted to this following on from our South African holiday, where the remains of the Dutch and British Empires still have a massive hold on today. Was the British Empire a Good Thing? Ferguson thinks so, but it is difficult to prove on this reading. Every one of his assertions could easily be countered, a fact he often admits. Does slavery provide the trump card in the game? It's difficult to argue that the fabulous thing about slavery, from a British perspective, was that we abolished it. The British were unique in cutting off their nose through abolishing a still very profitable trade. We didn't invent it, after all, and it was accepted practice for as long as men could throw spears and wield a club. So, aren't we great for getting rid of it? Well, no. It's a bit like if we in the West abolish a lot of Third World industrialisation on the basis of environmental concerns, after building our wealth and society through an unremitting exploitation of the world's natural resources. It's no' right.Another point that he admits is that if Britain hadn't squandered billions on expansion, but focused instead on letting free trade shape the world, Britain would be immeasurably richer and different today. All that talent that went abroad too, some of our brightest and best. I think, however, the things that sways me most against his arguments is his style. He often comes across as Tory Boy personified, David Cameron with a History Degree and a plush Oxford tenure. The British Empire - it hasn't done bad for you and yours, has it mate? But what about the townships, the ghettos and the native peoples of Africa, Australia and America? Would they agree, or would they tell you to kiss their black arse?
—Jim
For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated by the British Empire; this enormous edifice which towered over the world and 'bestrode' enormous amounts of the world's land-mass. Its fascinhation stems in part, I think, because it is an aspect of the world's history which stirs up so many conflicting emotions. Ones which sometimes seem diammetrically opposed to each other; shame because of the abuse and oppression which is undoubtedly present in some corners or even whole rooms of the aforesaid edifice whilst at the same time recognizing that the heritage, if that is the right word, of its long rule in other parts of the world produced stability and security. Having to face up to the reality of the intolerance and patronizing attitudes which infested the british ruling classes ('Liberty does not descend to a people. A people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed'...inscription on the New Delhi Secretariat from the British Consul) whilst also acknowledging that these same men, and it was largely men though not exclusively of course, enabled the development and opening out of huge swathes of the world.This also brings you up against the uncomfortable truth of the pillaging and stripping of these same swathes of land, the artificial creation of nations which were never truly real, the subjugation of independant tribes and ancient kingdoms and this collides with the British Empire's battle to rid the world of slavery, to encourage free trade and prevent protectionism. I could go on but Ferguson does an admirable job in attempting to shine light on all these aspects and shows, wittily and, it seems to me, fairly justly, the fact that any too simplistic treatment of this complex question so as to result in its dismissal as heinous or elevation to some sort of hagiographical utopia is crass and disingenuous.Attempting, as he does, to crush four hundred or so years of the world's development into under 400 pages was never going to be an easy ask. His treatment of various passages of history is surprisingly quick and almost dismissive though this may be because so many other volumes deal with these periods but I did find his emphasis intriguing where the construction of the Empire was detailed, in certain areas, microscopically but others were almost footnotes and similarly the collapse of the Empire was whistled through as if an attempt to mirror the rush from responsibility which is sometimes levelled at the UK's swift removal from Africa in the 50's and early 60's. This book deals with repression and cruelty which is quite shocking in parts, it shows the gradual development of a sensitivity to other nations and races which, with the inevitable embarrassing occasional retreat into bigotry and intolerance, did begin to take the upper hand in the british dealing with the 'outside world' but it also glittered with some real gems of wit and humour and wonderful sarcastic asides towards the hypocrisy and blindness, purposeful or otherwise, of those in power. This however leads into an interesting reflection on the new reality of empire now in our time. In his conclusion Ferguson points out the good and ill that resulted, in his opinion, from the 'largest empire the world had ever known' but he also points out by twisting Dean Acheson's aphorism that Britain had lost an Empire but failed to find a role that'The Americans have taken on our old role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it'Not everyone will agree with his conclusions, some will say he is too generous to the British Empire, others that he is too harsh; some will see his defence as mealy-mouthed or disingenuous others will see his attack as underhand or deliberately negative; He is too provocative, he is too entrenched, he allows himself to be too historically circumscribed, he is not conscious enough of historical factors....i am sure all of these things might be said by individuals as they read this book but the fact that so much of this might be said would point to the fact that he does, in a small concise way, make a fair stab at encapsulating an enormous sprawling historical one-off.
—Mark
