Rating: 
Summary: Lessons For Today
Review: The British Empire isn't recalled too wistfully today, but yet, as Ferguson reminds us, its importance for spreading western institutions like property rights and the rule-of-law around the world cannot be underestimated. Not can its sheer scope. With a standing army in the hundreds of thousands, Britain governed hundreds of millions of people. Plus, having an Empire is bloody entertaining -- at least for the folks reading the papers back in London.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Book
Review: The British Empire was the biggest, most powerful Empire ever known both militaristically and economically. Success like that doesn't come without a price. Many atrocities were committed and no amount of justification can change that appalling part of British history. However even in these modern times atrocities are committed all the time by nations on every continent of the world. Terror it would seem is part of human nature now as it was back then.Many reviewers go on about British atrocities, how the empire was built on other people's sufferings but was America not built on Indian land? The author fails to note many arguments of how what Britian did was no different to what empires both old and new have done. Where thousands of Indians not killed or forced out of their homes to make way for new American settlements? In a time were humanity was less then kind and generous Britain achieved what had never been achieved before, almost complete world domination. It modernized much of the world, brought order were there was none and kept down many evil dictators bent on world conquest (Hitler, Napoleon...). The book is not an apology for British rule but a refreshing look at the benefits of British rule, what Britian brought to the world. It doesn't skip the bad points of that nor justify them, it a good view of British history. 5 Stars It's a great book!
Rating: 
Summary: Ferguson's Fantasy
Review: The British Empire, the subject of this book, is of personal interest to me since I was born under the Union Jack in pre-1997 Hong Kong and am still living in the British Commonwealth. The book devotes most of its space to a highly competent narrative history - and positive spin - of the British Empire. Had Ferguson stopped there, I'd have given this book a higher rating. But he didn't. In the last chapter the author suggests America to follow in Britain's footsteps. There is no better way to describe this idea than "Alice in Wonderland." If Ferguson is emotionally committed to an American Empire, as he seems to be in the last chapter and in other writings, he will without any doubt whatsoever spend the rest of his career as bitterly disappointed as Winston Churchill once was about the death of his British Empire. Neither America's culture, which is the inevitable product of its history, nor the new world order shaping up in the 21st century, permits any such thing. Ferguson believes in a future American Empire, with Iraq as its first base. Judging by the difficulty President Bush had just to convince the UN to liberate Iraq, and by the emphatic way in which Donald Rumsfeld publicly announces America's intention to reduce troop levels in the Gulf, I am more certain than ever that Ferguson's thesis is an empty academic exercise. America was once - only 60 years ago - twice as powerful as it is today. Here's why. In 1945 United States with only 7% of the world's population made 42% of the world's income, held 50% of the world's industrial capacity, 75% of the world's gold, 90% of the world's cars, and the world's only nuclear weapons (and was the world's only country with the ability to make them). But America did not take advantage of its unprecedented power to invade, drug, disease, mass murder, conquer, exploit, rule, or lord it over other peoples - as the British did shamelessly in China (with opium), India, and numerous other places in Africa and the Pacific. Rather than create an empire of its own, America fostered anti-imperialism and decolonization everywhere. Today, America's GDP is 20% of the world's total, and shrinking. Also, in most other measures America has lost its dominance, if not leadership. Now, what makes Ferguson think that a much weaker America is now suddenly interested in doing what it never showed any interest in doing before when it was so much bigger? Also, America today has a somewhat lower international image today than it used to have in 1945, unfortunately. Back then even the Germans and the Japanese grudgingly liked the Americans once they realized how much worse they would have been under Stalin's rule. (About the only people who didn't were the Russians, having been brainwashed by the govenment.) For America to attempt a repeat now, in the entire Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, of what the British did in Egypt just before World War I, would be national suicide. One supposes even Rumsfeld understands that. But this is what Ferguson is hoping for, believe it or not. For understandable reasons, Ferguson has little to say about the Opium Wars. I don't blame him - who wants to talk about something that tarnishes the glory of the British Empire? (That doesn't mean most educated Chinese today have forgotten about it, however. There is a reason why China's biggest trade partner in Europe is Germany.) What he fails to realize is who the real beneficiary of the British Empire was - not America, whose birth was the struggle to be free from it, but a country about which he knows absolutely nothing: China. China had been in relative decline (relative to the West, that is) since about 1500. Until China was opened by force by British gunboats, China remained in self-satisfied slumber. Then the Scottish drug-dealers Jardine and Matheson rudely jolted the nation awake. The Opium Wars were the direct cause of the demise of the Manchu regime and the subsequent communist revolution, which then led to the economic reform and revival of the last two decades. Of course in the short term, the British caused enormous devastation in China. But in the long term, from the much longer perspective of world history, China benefited more from the British Empire than any other country. (But the Chinese today feel as little gratitude to the British as the Jews do to Hitler - even though similarly the Holocaust is a major reason why the Jews have a homeland for the first time in two thousand years.) I maintain that it was the British who set this gigantic process in motion, the consequences of which are still being played out before our eyes. It's sad to see such a brilliant mind coming up with such a crackpot idea as Pax Americana. Time will tell if I'm right, but I am in no doubt Ferguson is wrong. This dangerous wasp in his bonnet suggests he lives in the past and is blind to present and future realities. Worse, he shows a poor understanding that America's conduct is shaped no less by its historical course than by the new world order of the 21st century. Rather than worry about America's lack of interest in creating its own empire, with its lure of vicarious pleasure compensating for the demise of the British one, perhaps Ferguson should really ask himself whether the United Kingdom itself will survive the loss of Northern Ireland to Ireland and Scotland to independence. It has not escaped my notice, after all, that the UK was artificially created less than 300 years ago. For those who enjoy a positive and comprehensive overview of the British Empire - and I have several on this subject myself - this is not a bad book, so long as you're aware of the author's ideology.
Rating:
Summary: Coffee Table Book Really
Review: The kick with this book is in the last chapter where the author compares the British Empire with that of the American. Despite its faults the British Empire led to the direct government by Britian. This was accompanied by the outflow of capital the development of infastructure and the rule of law. The result of this is that a number of Britian's former colonies have developed as democratic nations in which there is ongoing progess. The most succesful example of this is perhaps India. Which is not to say that India is a more succesful country that say Canada or New Zealand rather its institutions have survived despite India being a poorer country which has to overcome considerable social problems and divisions. America's Empire on the other hand is different. America is a hegomonic power which does not govern directly but has controlled its turf by the setting up of governments favourable to its interests. Thus it has on a regular basis overthrown governments and replaced them with proxy regimes. America does not export capital and it does not send out migrants to help develop the institutions of other countries. In contrasting the two empires Ferguson believes that whilst Britain had many faults the results of its empire were good. The spread of the rule of law, the English Language the development of a commerical culture. America on the other hand has been marginally negative. The book is not simply a propoganda tract and it outlines the negative aspects of the British Empire. Its autocratic nature, the implicit racism in its institutions the various massacres and crimes. However it has elements of adolescents debate about whose father has the more important job. That is a nostalgic look at a vanished institution.
Rating:
Summary: A History Worth Knowing and Weighing
Review: The main reason to read Ferguson's Empire is to learn more about this strange beast, mostly ignored or derided over the last half-century. An empire has its own circulatory system, its own way of extending its arms, and has not really been treated as a serious subject for decades. It provides another way of studying the history of globalization, and offers a coherent approach not available through other means. But does the subject have the vividness and drama to sustain a coffee table tome? And can an Oxford historian whose claim to fame has been two 400-page volumes on an 18th century Jewish banker make it worth reading? Is this thing worth the exertion to heft, let alone finance? And why should Americans even care about somebody else's past glories?
The book provides its own answer: it is worthwhile on every count. Indeed the subject grips you, the story is told dramatically, the plot twists and turns, there are lively characters. The text breaths, like something delivered energetically in a lecture hall, with passion. The pictures are a beautiful complement to what you read. From chapter one through the last, Empire reads well, informing as it entertains. On that basis alone the work is worth reading, and given the cost, worth owning (and flaunting) for a long time.
But does it actually make the case that the Empire helped the U.K. and the world as a whole? This matter seeps through the body of the text, but steps forward in both the introduction and conclusion. And further, an additional matter thrusts itself forward: should the U.S. take heed of this history and assume the imperial mantle, though it does not seem to want it or show much promise of carrying it well, given its short attention span and allegiance to "democratic traditions?"
It is this issue of Empire's worth and the U.S.'s potential imperial role that has driven this book and its author into the limelight. The argument is not made in the body of the text, but instead surfaces there only in a few places with a more forceful articulation in the introduction and conclusion. Ferguson admits a fondness for empire in the introduction, and the conclusion adds an American angle.
One can appreciate an excellent work of history, and then address this application of history within a philosophical argument about the British past and the American future. You can feel reasonably well armed for the debate on reading the body of the text, and can have some fun with the political argument. So despite its bulk and museum-like quality, Empire can serve as a springboard for serious thought and discussion. Not a bad way to spend at bit of time!
Rating: 
Summary: History with a Conscience!
Review: The story of the British Empire is a sprawling story and a vast undertaking. However, Niall Ferguson proves up to the challenge in this witty and objective account. Why Britain? Because they were the best pirates and stole much of what they gained from the Spanish, Dutch, French, and then plundered India, the Caribbean, North America, and Africa. Ferguson's writing is so fresh and enlightening. In his conclusion, he mentions how the U.S. has become the heirs of the British Empire, although reluctant to take up the mantel. We have the resources to continue a `New Imperialism,' but lack the export of capital and people to really colonize and carry the cause of liberty to others.
Rating:
Summary: A pleasure on multiple levels
Review: There is no need to repeat the excellent insights by other reviewers. In short, this is an excellent overview, with great economic and cultural insights, and, thank God, Ferguson is honestly and admittedly biased (as though we can believe historians who claim to be "unbiased"). Lastly however, Empire is beautifully illustrated, and a pleasure to hold and simply browse through, again and again. What more does one ask of a book!
Rating:
Summary: The history soufflé: sweet, but mostly air
Review: This book is really a page-turner: very nice to look at with lots of interesting pictures and quotes ' it invites you to browse through it rather than read it from the start. And at the first glance it is very interesting to read as well. Mr. Ferguson starts with personal memories and then develops a theory, which as usual for him is against the current established opinion: The empire was a good thing (gasp!). From then on he races and jumps through British history from the 16th century to the 20th and never stops to take a breath. That way the American Revolution becomes a four-page-anecdote, about the same space reserved for the life of the author of 'Amazing Grace'. It is an interesting detail to learn that this man in earlier life was the master of a slave-ship, but is it really relevant to the history and meaning of the empire? The book oozes Television Series from every page: colorful pictures, fast pace, more ore less meaningless information bites and quick jumps from one continent and one century to the other. At the end of the book one is baffled: already over? And just because it became a net drain within less than one generation? Or because the Boer War was the Vietnam of its age? Come on! Something is missing here : a theory, arguments, research. It is (mostly) lacking, instead this book provides good entertainment and the linkage with other books. For example WW1 and the German support for Turkey become linked with the novel 'Greenmantle' by John Buchanan. All very nice and an incentive to read more. So it is a good book, even if it is like a soufflé: sweet, but mostly air. No wonder it was a TV series first'
Rating:
Summary: Well researched, good points
Review: This book takes a positive spin on the English empire showing its many virtues and contrasting them with the negatives implicit in other imperial countries(like Spain). He explores many new anectdotes and reviews many specific examples of empire, while weaving together a story that ultimatly leads him to conclude that America should export the values of free market democracy abroad. How does the author explain the virtues of empire, something most opf us are taught is evil in grade school? The author shows that british common values and british obsession with order and the legal system made for leaps and bounds in development from China to Belize. When one contrasts former English colonies with other former colonies(be they portuguese, French or Spanish) one will see a higher proportion of democracies among the former english colonies. Lets look at a few points. No Former british colony has engaged in genocide against its own people, while Former french colonies like Rwanda have. Most former british colonies are democratic: Australia, Botswana, S. Africa, Belize, Jamaica, Kenya, U.S, Canada, India etc... How does one explain that neighbooring countries like Ethiopia, Cuba, Angola, Indonesia, Mexico are mostly either dictatorships or near dictatorships with one party rule? It cant just be bad luck, it is in fact that the British took time to educate their colonial citizens in the British system, creating a democratic elite. THis was the case in India. Yet In places like Portugues Mozambique or Angola and places like CUba or Vietnam were abandoned by the Spanish, French and others in haste and in rebellion, having never trained a colonial elite to rule when they were gone. English colonial success goes beyond not becoming barbaric and retaining democracy. English colonies tend to be less corrupt then thier neighboors and have more division of wealth. Take for example the difference between Canada and Mexico, Mexico had ten times the resources then Canada yet it is a ciorrupt country with a small class of very rich billionares and masses(hoards) of poor people. Both countries are socialist but one has created a model democratic society, the other is currupt, anti-forienger and has had almost one party rule for the last 100 years. In fact Mexico has had internal strife and war for much of its existance while canda has only once experienced an internal rebellion(and it involved about 200 people). Take for example Botswana and Angola. Angola is a savage place of war, Botswana is a peacefull democracy that protects its n atural resources. THis this book sheds light on the good values Englend imparted to its former citizens. Just look at Hong Kong and compare it with a place like Malaysia. Hong Kong is fiercely independent and so is Singapore, yet the countries between them(that were ruled by the Frnech and others) are savage and cruel and have no demcoracy or human rights. The author concludes that america must use Straussian logic and export our ways to the world, stead fast in the belief that Democratic free market societis based on individual rights are the bases of good societies. English common law is where we derived our uncorrupt court system. The rest of the world needs a lesson in jurisprudence and we need to bring it. One last point. American seperation of church and state is another model that needs be applied to Islamic societies, this exporting of values will help end international terror. This is an important book for todays world.
Rating: 
Summary: Stop! Think before you read!
Review: This man, who has just written an article in the New York Times Magazine advocating America colonizing the Middle East, is saying America needs an empire in the last chapter of this book. (The rest of the book is devoted to explaining what a wonderful thing the British Empire was, and what a pity it is gone.) Ferguson argues America should use its unprecedented power to rule the world - using the British Empire as model. The only thing he regrets is that Britain never had the relative power which America today enjoys over its rivals, or else Britain could have ruled the world. America must therefore not lose its chance of a thousand lifetimes. I really do wonder if Ferguson is ... an ivory tower academic. Or is he some secret hater of the United States? One doesn't have to be a genius to immediately figure out that to follow his advice would be national suicide. Already, poll after poll conducted by Pew Research in DC are showing rising resentment around the globe against America - even in Western Europe and Russia, not to mention [religion]countries. The goodwill of the world after 9-11 has been squandered. If America turns into a bully, even a mass murderer - and you know what the British did to build their Empire - then we'd be setting ourselves up for one 9-11 a day - with WMD! Only this time, the rest of the world would gloat and applaud rather than cry with us. Of course, if Ferguson is realistic enough (and this is not impossible) he should know that America will go in the opposite direction to the road he wants us to go down. That's not something any one person can change - not even if, heaven forbid, he himself should become the president (thank goodness this is impossible as Ferguson is foreign born). Like the Turner Diaries, this is one of the most dangerous books to read in this post-9-11 world. Ferguson is potentially more harmful to America's national interests than one hundred Robert Hanssens or Tim McVeighs. I'd rest more peacefully at night if Tom Ridge would speedily arrest him and place him somewhere in Guantanamo indefinitely. Ferguson belongs there - or else in a mental facility.
| 
