Status
Publication
Description
Historians have long debated the rise and fall of empires. To date, however, no one has studied the far rarer phenomenon of hyperpowers--those few societies that amassed such extraordinary military and economic might that they essentially dominated the world. Here, globalization expert Chua explains how hyperpowers rise and why they fall. She examines history's hyperpowers--Persia, Rome, Tang China, the Mongols, the Dutch, the British, and the United States--and reveals the reasons behind their success, as well as the roots of their ultimate demise. For all their differences, she argues, every one of these world-dominant powers was, at least by the standards of its time, extraordinarily pluralistic and tolerant, succeeding by harnessing the skills and energies of individuals from very different backgrounds. But Chua also uncovers a great historical irony: in virtually every instance, multicultural tolerance eventually sowed the seeds of decline, and diversity became a liability.--From publisher description.… (more)
User reviews
But nevertheless, there are a few issues with this approach. To start with, she supports the story of the rise of various empires with quotations from primary sources in which the generosity of the rulers is highlighted; that is questionable, because it is a classic ingredient of primary sources, especially chronicles, to emphasize both the cruelty and the generosity of the rulers. Secondly, there are some minor historical errors. For example, Chua highlights the ultra-cosmopolitanism of the Mongolian empire, while recent literature agrees that this was a romantic exaggeration. Occasionally there is also clear 'bias': her negativity about the Spanish empire in the 16-17th century is very pronounced, but it is based on one-sided sources, and it is inversely proportional to her positivity about the Dutch Republic (for example: as one of the reasons for the Dutch uprising she mentions the linguistic ignorance of the Spanish leadership, but also the leader of the breakaway Holland-coalition, William of Orange, hardly spoke a word of Dutch!).
There’s also extravagant attention for the share of the Jews in the rise of the different empires: wherever possible, she puts this in the spotlight. Of course, the fate of the Jewish community certainly is pre-eminently indicator for the degree of tolerance in a certain empire, but the excess of detail is striking in comparison with other foreign populations. Indirectly Chua feeds (undoubtedly against her will) classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that saw the hand of the Jews everywhere.
My main objection to her theory is a form of tunnel vision that she introduces. It can be refreshing to view history from a certain angle, as in this case the concept of tolerance. But Chua makes a direct causal connection between tolerance and the greater prosperity and domination of empires. she always presents it as a one-way-connection; and that’s strange. It could well be that tolerance is not so much a cause but a consequence of the prosperous growth of a state, as a luxury that can be afforded because of the military-political-economic strength. Conversely, the loss of tolerance may be the result of the loss of strength and power in those other areas. Something tells me that this relationship is much more complex than Chua proposes.
On the plus side I have to mention again that I can appreciate Chua's approach: to study the past in order to draw lessons for the present is a courageous thask, if it’s carefully done.