Rating: 
Summary: Amazing, lacks some fine points
Review: THis tour de force traces the rise and decline of the British empire and emphatically argues that although not always wonderful the British empire was the best alternative to empire like the Nazis and Japanese 'coprosperity sphere'. In this wonderful volume we learn of the exploits of Livingston, Clive, and many others who carved out 25 percent of the world for England. We learn of the less glorious aspects like the Boer war and the anti-slavery movement. THe major oversight is neglecting to the tell the tale of UDI in Rhodesia, of Smuts and of Mao Mao or the Falklands war, but nevertheless this book explains how Britian made the Modern world.Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: History Repeated.
Review: What an unusual look at history. A look at the British
Empire of bygone days and compared with what America is
doing today. This is not your average history book. I liked it
lots and do recommend it, but remember, I said it was different.
Rating: 
Summary: Gripping at straws
Review: What the heck has happened to Niall Ferguson? Before reading Empire, I had him placed in my mind as an eccentric and enjoyable young historian and the author of sometimes inaccessible historical tomes that -- if you could make it through them -- often gave innovative takes to what had been tired subjects. I cannot say that I agree with everything in previous efforts from Mr. Ferguson: in The Pity of War, for example, one of his main points was that Germany was not militaristic before the first world war. And in The House of Rothschild (his best book), I believe Mr. Ferguson's take on the French family judges them to harshly by using today's standards on a 19th century history. But with Empire, the author appears to have completely lost his hold on reality. Mr. Ferguson spends most of the book's 352 glossy pages glossing over some of the atrocities of Britain's colonial period (he does not claim it was faultless, only that the spilled blood was necessary). He argues for the virtues of colonial rule in India, and spends far too little time and effort on the policies that set the stage for apartheid in South Africa. He says that the money and technology the empire spread balanced out the evils committed in colonial Africa and parts of Asia and the Caribbean. But this is all just setting the stage for his argument about the current American empire, and the lessons it can learn from Britain's former position as the world's lone superpower. The issue of America's role in the world using history as a guide is an important and interesting subject -- and I enjoyed reading Mr. Ferguson's argument that, as a former British colony, the U.S. is a kind of heir to Britain's empire. But his appalling conclusion is that the U.S. should tighten its grip of influence on the world and make its self into an empire in more ways than the simple economic, social and military dominance it has now. What? Isn't America's might and unilateral policies what sparked anti-Americanism across the globe? If the U.S. followed the British example, wouldn't the kind of uprisings and insurgencies that crippled it at its peak be many times worse now, when combined with modern technology? This book is not designed to be read on its own, but as a companion to a BBC television series. I have not seen the series, but I must imagine that certain topics were selected and highlighted because they made good television. I don't know how that explains Mr. Ferguson's dangerous conclusions, but I am gripping at straws here. I guess I don't want to believe that a writer I have admired in the past has really become so distasteful.
Rating: 
Summary: Why waste your time?
Review: Why waste your time reading this half-intellectual defense of imperialism? It seems the book's major contribution is the idea that imperialism is a 50-50 adventure, 50% brutal and 50% enlightening to the "natives". That's pure hogwash. It is true that Europe was in a much more advanced stage, materially and politically, than other parts of the world, but that doesn't justify the belief that Europe had a right to "pull the rest of the world" forward through colonizing people and imposing foreign rule. Walter Rodney, in his "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa", proves quite clearly that Africa had developed advanced feudal societies and did not need European "civilization" (colonialism) to advance. As other reviewers have correctly highlighted, if Europe wanted to "advance" the rest of the world, it could have done so by acceding to the wishes of many Third World leaders for technological and financial aid. Somehow it is hard for me to understand how taking the reigns of government, economics, and social structure away from a people teaches them "civilized" rule. The better way might have been to attempt to persuade other civilizations to take the better features of Western civilization, rather than imposing it on them. That didn't work, and led to much bloodshed in the struggle for liberation. Ferguson's last statement is that America needs to take the mantle of Britain and act in a "benevolent imperial" fashion. Basically, find a way to "pull the rest of the world" along American "civilization" lines. If colonialism and Walter Rodney have taught us, that didn't it work, on a technical basis, and morally, it is completely indefensible to justify imperialism. That, and it is politically harder to do so, for the former colonized world is now 130+ free countries. Ferguson should be ashamed for writing this. It is not going to be him or his daughters/sons that will be at the imperial front lines imposing American "benevolent imperialism", yet this tract will most likely influence the thinking of American imperial foreign policy decision-makers. Want to contribute something to humanity? Find ways to be productive in your community and in your nation, and further understanding, rather than warfare, among peoples. Don't waste your precious time reading this morally worthless defense of imperialism.
Rating: 
Summary: A biased but Interesting Book
Review: You don't have to agree with Niall Ferguson to enjoy this interesting and competent book. Ferguson's main idea is that the British empire was the worst possible empire, except for all of the others (except maybe the US). His conclusion is that the empire was flawed but ultimatley benevolent and that for the most part the long term results were fairly positive. This is not a view that I or many others share but Ferguson backs it up with facts, albiet with a spin. And he does make good points. Britain's actions in INdia were oppressive but would France or Germany have allowed it to form a National Congress or even let a man like Ghandi become a lawyer? And he also does well to point out that for most of it's history Britian was a reluctant imperial power and that *most* acts of overt imperialism before the 1880's were not initiated by the government but by private companies. Which is true. Cecil Rhodes did not work for the government and the East Inidan COmpany ruled India until 1857. And we sometimes forget that it was the Boer majority of whites in South Africa that helped cause the problems to come, not that the British did much to prevent it or that they were much better in countries were this wasn't a problem. However, it was made a domain in 1910, which meant British influence on domestic affairs was limited. In my opinion, Ferguson offers an interesting but not entirely convincing view of the empire. I recomend this book to anyone interested in the British Empire. It's always nice to read books from different percpectives and some of the stories he relays are very interesting. Just be warned the Niall Ferguson is, by his own admission in the Introduction, biased. SO be sure to take everything he says with a grain of salt.
| 
