Status
Available
Call number
Publication
New York : Basic Books, 2003
Description
The British Empire was the largest in all history: the nearest thing to global domination ever achieved. The world we know today is in large measure the product of Britain's age of empire. The global spread of capitalism, telecommunications, the English language, and the institutions of representative government-all these can be traced back to the extraordinary expansion of Britain's economy, population, and culture from the seventeenth century until the mid-twentieth. On a vast and vividly colored canvas, Empire shows how the British Empire acted as midwife to modernity. Displaying the originality and rigor that have made him the brightest light among British historians, Ferguson shows that far from being a subject for nostalgia, the story of the Empire is pregnant with lessons for the world today-in particular for the United States as it stands on the brink of a new kind of imperial power. A dazzling tour de force, Empire is a remarkable reappraisal of the prizes and pitfalls of global empire.… (more)
Media reviews
That the British Empire was, on balance, "a good thing" is a provocative idea, the sort that has made Ferguson a celebrity in the U.K. Ferguson has written six books during the past eight years, and he has often thrilled in presenting novel twists to what others in the academy consider settled
Show More
historical fact. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member bruchu
Deconstructing Anglobalization
There are plenty of reviews so I will keep this one brief. I picked up this book in preparation for a course I will be taking this upcoming semester. As others have pointed out, "Empire" is by no means an exhaustive examination of the British Empire but Niall Ferguson
I think that most people who object to the book with respect to Ferguson's perceived apologia towards colonialism misunderstand his central argument. Ferguson is not making any moral judgments. He is not saying that the ends justify the means, or sometimes we have to engage in evil to do good. Ferguson's central thesis is about modernity and colonization's role in shaping the modernizing forces of liberalism, capitalism, and democracy throughout the world. Ferguson does not mince words when describes the brutality in how these objectives were achieved, the racial oppression, and fundamentally flawed ideologies.
Ferguson defines 'anglobalization' as the first wave globalization pushed forward by the British who he rightly identifies as imitators, as it was the Spanish, Dutch, and French who all had empires much earlier than the British. Ultimately, Ferguson concludes that it was the monopoly on the use of violence which allowed the British to conquer so many people, and their use of 'indirect rule' to administer its vast empire on the cheap.
What I like most about the book is Ferguson's writing and the widespread use of illustrations. Ferguson isn't too academic, and writes very succinctly, though he does throw in the over-simplified sentence every now and again.
Overall, I highly recommend this book as a mostly economic history of the British Empire. Certainly a good companion for any undergrad course in British history.
There are plenty of reviews so I will keep this one brief. I picked up this book in preparation for a course I will be taking this upcoming semester. As others have pointed out, "Empire" is by no means an exhaustive examination of the British Empire but Niall Ferguson
Show More
articulates his points very well in this textbook styled survey book.I think that most people who object to the book with respect to Ferguson's perceived apologia towards colonialism misunderstand his central argument. Ferguson is not making any moral judgments. He is not saying that the ends justify the means, or sometimes we have to engage in evil to do good. Ferguson's central thesis is about modernity and colonization's role in shaping the modernizing forces of liberalism, capitalism, and democracy throughout the world. Ferguson does not mince words when describes the brutality in how these objectives were achieved, the racial oppression, and fundamentally flawed ideologies.
Ferguson defines 'anglobalization' as the first wave globalization pushed forward by the British who he rightly identifies as imitators, as it was the Spanish, Dutch, and French who all had empires much earlier than the British. Ultimately, Ferguson concludes that it was the monopoly on the use of violence which allowed the British to conquer so many people, and their use of 'indirect rule' to administer its vast empire on the cheap.
What I like most about the book is Ferguson's writing and the widespread use of illustrations. Ferguson isn't too academic, and writes very succinctly, though he does throw in the over-simplified sentence every now and again.
Overall, I highly recommend this book as a mostly economic history of the British Empire. Certainly a good companion for any undergrad course in British history.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Eamonn12
A book that doesn’t spare the British Empire as regards cruelty, atrocity and humbug. ” The native Americans were tolerated when they were able to fit in to the emerging British economic order … but where [they] claimed ownership of agriculturally valuable land, coexistence was simply ruled
Even when one is well acquainted with the rape and pillage associated with empire-building, the histories retailed by this book (‘Empire’, by Niall Ferguson) will be disturbing. Details of what was done to the ‘other’ Indians when they revolted in 1857 are sickening to read. A Lieutenant Kendal Coghill is quoted as saying ‘We burnt every village and hanged all the villagers who had treated our fugitives badly until every tree was covered with scoundrels hanging from every branch’ (p.152). Fergusan adds: ‘At the height of the reprisals, one huge banyan tree — which still stands in Cawnpore — was festooned with 150 corpses’.
Of course all this murdering was hard work. Thankfully the invention of the Maxim gun made things easier later on in the century, not to mention the much later blessing of ’government from the air’, whereby you warned people if they didn’t do as they were told they could expect to be bombed out of existence next day.
And is there nothing at all to be said FOR the British Empire? As an Englishman, Niall Ferguson tries his best. Look at what the Japanese did to the poor people of Nanking in 1937, he says. Appalling cruelty (and he is so right). Now, if one had to live under and empire, he asks, wasn’t it better to live under a British Empire, rather than under that horrible Japanese Empire? Or, he says, look at the imperial legacy: British Law. The English Language. Membership of the Commonwealth…
Oh dear. But a great book. Thoroughly recommended.
Show More
out. If the Indians resisted expropriation, then they could and should (in Locke’s words) ‘be destroyed as a Lyon or a Tyger, one of those wild Savage Beasts, with whom men can have no Society or Security’ ” (p. 65). Locke? Not the great philosopher? Yes, the very same and at the time (c.1630) acting as ‘Secretary to the Lords Proprietors of North Carolina’ (ie., as ‘Secretary to the Imperial Gang of Murderers and Land Grabbers’).Even when one is well acquainted with the rape and pillage associated with empire-building, the histories retailed by this book (‘Empire’, by Niall Ferguson) will be disturbing. Details of what was done to the ‘other’ Indians when they revolted in 1857 are sickening to read. A Lieutenant Kendal Coghill is quoted as saying ‘We burnt every village and hanged all the villagers who had treated our fugitives badly until every tree was covered with scoundrels hanging from every branch’ (p.152). Fergusan adds: ‘At the height of the reprisals, one huge banyan tree — which still stands in Cawnpore — was festooned with 150 corpses’.
Of course all this murdering was hard work. Thankfully the invention of the Maxim gun made things easier later on in the century, not to mention the much later blessing of ’government from the air’, whereby you warned people if they didn’t do as they were told they could expect to be bombed out of existence next day.
And is there nothing at all to be said FOR the British Empire? As an Englishman, Niall Ferguson tries his best. Look at what the Japanese did to the poor people of Nanking in 1937, he says. Appalling cruelty (and he is so right). Now, if one had to live under and empire, he asks, wasn’t it better to live under a British Empire, rather than under that horrible Japanese Empire? Or, he says, look at the imperial legacy: British Law. The English Language. Membership of the Commonwealth…
Oh dear. But a great book. Thoroughly recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gmicksmith
The British Empire is the world's largest empire and ushered in the modern age. Surely there must be lessons for others to follow and to avoid in an empire. The central question of the book is to consider the role of the United States as the inheritor of the British Empire. Indeed, it is the first
Most of the Founders of America assumed the United States would become an empire in its own right although in contemporary American political debates both the Left and the Right have criticized an American Empire. Thomas Donnelly and Max Boot remain two of the very few commentators who seek a responsible role for an American Empire. Post-Napoleonic and asymmetrical warfare abounded for a Britain tied to global hegemony. The question then is this the proper role of America in the tradition of the British Empire? Two distinctions remain: the American Navy is stupendously more powerful and possesses a range far exceeding anything the British could accomplish, and two, American power is diplomatic and economic in nature as opposed to direct colonial domination. There are important distinctions to be sure but a comparison of historical precedents are instructive according to Ferguson.
Cases against Empire include many varieties of political persuasion from classical liberal, free trade, and Marxism, a whole gamut of opposition. The gist of all such arguments though comes down to this: "can you have globalization without gunboats?" (p. xix). Ferguson continues: "There is a growing recognition of the importance of legal, financial and administrative institutions such as the rule of law, credible monetary regimes, transparent fiscal systems and incorrupt bureaucracies in encouraging cross-border capital flows" (pp. xix-xx). Empire enhances global welfare (p. xx).
There are distinctive features of the British Empire and a long list could be developed. Central for Ferguson though is the notion of liberty. This is not to suggest that liberty flowed automatically to the colonized and oppressed but it did entail te idea that a self-critique and correction to empire always existed in the minds of the British themselves. It was only a matter of time and inevitable that self-criticism and classically liberal freedoms would emerge for themselves and their colonies.
Show More
major rebel against British hegemony. Most of the Founders of America assumed the United States would become an empire in its own right although in contemporary American political debates both the Left and the Right have criticized an American Empire. Thomas Donnelly and Max Boot remain two of the very few commentators who seek a responsible role for an American Empire. Post-Napoleonic and asymmetrical warfare abounded for a Britain tied to global hegemony. The question then is this the proper role of America in the tradition of the British Empire? Two distinctions remain: the American Navy is stupendously more powerful and possesses a range far exceeding anything the British could accomplish, and two, American power is diplomatic and economic in nature as opposed to direct colonial domination. There are important distinctions to be sure but a comparison of historical precedents are instructive according to Ferguson.
Cases against Empire include many varieties of political persuasion from classical liberal, free trade, and Marxism, a whole gamut of opposition. The gist of all such arguments though comes down to this: "can you have globalization without gunboats?" (p. xix). Ferguson continues: "There is a growing recognition of the importance of legal, financial and administrative institutions such as the rule of law, credible monetary regimes, transparent fiscal systems and incorrupt bureaucracies in encouraging cross-border capital flows" (pp. xix-xx). Empire enhances global welfare (p. xx).
There are distinctive features of the British Empire and a long list could be developed. Central for Ferguson though is the notion of liberty. This is not to suggest that liberty flowed automatically to the colonized and oppressed but it did entail te idea that a self-critique and correction to empire always existed in the minds of the British themselves. It was only a matter of time and inevitable that self-criticism and classically liberal freedoms would emerge for themselves and their colonies.
Show Less
LibraryThing member raymond_and_sarah
A very readable history of the British Empire's formation, life, and end. It makes a good case that, despite the incompetence and atrocities, the Empire did achieve many good outcomes not only the obvious such as fighting slavery and defeating Fascism, but also in economic terms for both UK and
The book is necessarily high-level and broad-brushed in its coverage. Despite this it contains quite interesting points of detail. One which was new to me was the role of Australia (and then PM Billie Hughes in particular) in forcing crushing reparations on Germany post World War I. The line I had always been taught was that this was entirely due to the French! A surprising claim that I will have to look into in more detail.
Overall a good read, with some different takes on an old subject.
Show More
Colonial peoples. He presents (surprising to me) statistics showing the vast movements of labour, capital, and goods within the Empire and also how per-capita income has fallen in many former Colonies since independence.The book is necessarily high-level and broad-brushed in its coverage. Despite this it contains quite interesting points of detail. One which was new to me was the role of Australia (and then PM Billie Hughes in particular) in forcing crushing reparations on Germany post World War I. The line I had always been taught was that this was entirely due to the French! A surprising claim that I will have to look into in more detail.
Overall a good read, with some different takes on an old subject.
Show Less
LibraryThing member otterley
It's an incredibly impressive achievement to write a history about something as complex as imperialism so concisely, accessibly and punchily. Starting with the personal (the impact of the empire on Ferguson's family), it challenges contemporary myths, provides a coherent and believable account of
Show More
the motive forces and behaviours of the British as imperialists and ends with a thought provoking and challenging section on the new American 'imperialism'. British people (or at least British liberals) have, over the last twenty or thirty years, simply felt a mix of guilt, embarrassment and incomprehension of our imperial past - this book provides a bracingly different perspective - not an apologist's one, but one that is more nuanced. Show Less
LibraryThing member dazzyj
A masterly and balanced synthesis of the greatest historical story of the past 400 years.
LibraryThing member marshapetry
Audiobook review: Difficult read. Good book, very interesting, but don't recommend it for a long car trip.
LibraryThing member mbmackay
Ferguson writes a pro-Empire historian, but one who is not blind to the awful aspects of the process. I learned much from this book. For example, the Indian "mutiny" of 1857 can be directly linked to the impact of missionary activity which had been barred by the East India Company, but which had
Show More
been allowed to intrude in the years leading up to the mutiny. Second, who knew that India sent more troops to WW1 than Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa combined? And third, that Roosevelt and the rest of the American leadership in the lead up to their involvement in WW2 were explicitly anti Empire - that their support for the UK was conditional on it not being support for the British Empire as it stood. (As it turned out, Britain was broke after the war so the empire collapsed of its own accord. The fact that the US was the creditor now makes it seem that the cause and consequence may have happily linked in the American's minds.) This is a good book well written. I was surprised to find, in the credits, that the book was the "book of the TV series" - it shows no sign of being a spin-off, and stands well on its own. Read April 2014. Show Less
LibraryThing member wyvernfriend
A very interesting book, particularly in regard to India and Africa but a bit sparse with regards to Ireland and in fact I found it occasionally annoying with it's attitude to Ireland. It was interesting to see how different ideologies build different colonies and the colonial legacy of several
Show More
different nations. Also interesting were the comments re: American Imperialism in the modern age and how it struggles with acceptance of it's actual role while trying to appear not to be an empire and to decry empires and imperialism. Show Less
LibraryThing member brakketh
Focuses quite a lot on the positives of the British empire whitewashing much of the history. Thesis appears to be that the gains were worth it and if it wasn't the British it would have been someone/something worse.
LibraryThing member Brumby18
Excellent perspective on geopolitical situation from historical perspective. Little dated with the current circumstances. But gives an interesting perspective of imperialism and how it affected our society of today. Worth the read
Subjects
Awards
Arthur Ross Book Award (Shortlist — 2004)
Language
Original publication date
2003
ISBN
0465023290 / 9780465023295