Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (Hardcover)

by Niall Ferguson (Author) "In December 1663 a Welshman called Henry Morgan sailed five hundred miles across the Caribbean to mount a spectacular raid on a Spanish outpost called..." (more)
Key Phrases: East India Company, United States, South Africa (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
At its peak in the nineteenth century, the British Empire was the largest empire ever known, governing roughly a quarter of the world's population. In Empire, Niall Ferguson explains how "an archipelago of rainy islands... came to rule the world," and examines the costs and consequences, both good and bad, of British imperialism. Though the book's breadth is impressive, it is not intended to be a comprehensive history of the British Empire; rather, Ferguson seeks to glean lessons from this history for future, or present, empires--namely America. Pointing out that the U.S. is both a product of the British Empire as well as an heir to it, he asks whether America--an "empire in denial"--should "seek to shed or to shoulder the imperial load it has inherited." As he points out in this fascinating book, there is compelling evidence for both.

Observing that "the difficulty with the achievements of empire is that they are much more likely to be taken for granted than the sins of empire," Ferguson stresses that the British did do much good for humanity in their quest for domination: promotion of the free movement of goods, capital, and labor and a common rule of law and governance chief among them. "The question is not whether British imperialism was without blemish. It was not. The question is whether there could have been a less bloody path to modernity," he writes. The challenge for the U.S., he argues, is for it to use its undisputed power as a force for positive change in the world and not to fall into some of the same traps as the British before them.

Covering a wide range of topics, including the rise of consumerism (initially fueled by a desire for coffee, tea, tobacco, and sugar), the biggest mass migration in history (20 million emigrants between the early 1600s and the 1950s), the impact of missionaries, the triumph of capitalism, the spread of the English language, and globalization, this is a brilliant synthesis of various topics and an extremely entertaining read. --Shawn Carkonen

From Publishers Weekly
Acclaimed British historian Ferguson (The Pity of War) takes the revisionist (or perhaps re-revisionist) position that the British Empire was, on balance, a good thing, that it "impos[ed] free markets, the rule of law... and relatively incorrupt government" on a quarter of the globe. Ferguson's imperial boosterism differs from more critical recent scholarship on the empire, such as Linda Colley's Captives and Simon Schama's A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire. Ferguson's gracefully written narrative traces the history of the empire from its beginnings in the 16th century. As Ferguson tells it, by the 18th century British consumers had developed a strong taste for sugar, tobacco, coffee, tea and other imports. The empire's role was to supply these commodities and to offer cheap land to British settlers. Not until the late 18th century did Britain add a "civilizing mission" to its commercial motives. Liberals in Britain, often fired by religious feelings, abolished the slave trade and then set out to Christianize indigenous peoples. Ferguson gives a wonderful account of the fabled career of missionary and explorer David Livingstone. The author admits that the British sometimes responded to native opposition with brutality and racism. Yet he argues that other empires, especially those of Germany and Japan, were far more brutal (a not entirely satisfying defense). Indeed, Ferguson contends that Britain nobly sacrificed its empire in order to defeat these imperial rivals in WWII. His provocative and elegantly written account will surely trigger debate, if not downright vilification, among history readers and postcolonial scholars. 25 color illus., b&w illus., maps.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (April 1, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465023282
• ISBN-13: 978-0465023288
• Product Dimensions: 9.7 x 7.6 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (79 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #333,612 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

46 of 49 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Very Pukka Look At The British Empire, April 7, 2003

By	John D. Cofield - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Niall Ferguson has made a name for himself as the historian of counterfactuals, or imaginative looks at "history as it could have been." He was the editor of Virtual History, which provides alternate scenarios of past events, and the author of The Pity of War, a look at World War I which concluded that the world would be immensely better off today if the British had stayed out in August 1914 and let the Germans win. Now in Empire Ferguson has given us a history of the British Empire which any nineteenth century imperialist would pronounce to be pukka, or first rate.

Basically Ferguson argues that the British Empire was a positive contribution to the world in that it gave its colonial possessions traditions like self-government and personal liberties. Ferguson does not maintain that there were no abuses of power or that none of the indigeneous peoples ruled by British officials were ever mistreated, but he does believe that on balance, more good was done than bad. He makes this argument most strongly in covering the twentieth century, when he points out that the British were much better colonial rulers than the Germans or Japanese were. Most of Empire's readers will undoubtedly agree with this point, but many will also wonder why it was necessary for the British to colonize these peoples in the first place. Ferguson is straightforward, saying that the original reason for imperialism was greed for products like tea. More highflown objectives like ending the slave trade and converting "primitive" areas to civilization and Christianity came much later,and never diverted attention for very long from the basic quest for wealth. Ferguson is also direct in saying that the major reason for the end of the Empire after World War II was that it was simply too expensive to keep going. The last pages are especially timely in that Ferguson speculates on the role of a revived imperialism of the twenty-first century in the hands of Britain's most famous former colony, the United States.

One of Empire's major flaws is its tendency to give short shrift to the cultures which came under British power. The Mughals of India are barely discussed, and Qing Dynasty China rates even less attention. Ferguson's basic attitude is that those cultures were no better, and in some ways much worse, than the British who came to dominate them. For another view of Britain's supposed superiority in governing Asian territories, you could read Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, which chronicles British ineptitude in dealing with famine in India and China.

The book is well written and beautifully illustrated. I hope that the British TV series it companions will eventually be shown on PBS. Like the book, it should be controversial and thought-provoking.

90 of 107 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Empirically Rigorous, April 10, 2003

By	Bruce Loveitt (Ogdensburg, NY USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

I almost didn't purchase this book, because some professional reviewers denigrated it as an "apology" for the British Empire. I'm glad I didn't listen to those reviewers and, after reading the book, I'm puzzled that anyone could come to that conclusion. Professor Ferguson spends a good portion of the book detailing many of the negative aspects of the Empire- the condescending and racist attitudes, frequently, that were displayed by the British towards subject peoples; the excessive use of force (literally, overkill) in places such as Omdurman (where the British, and their Egyptian and Sudanese auxilliaries, used Maxim machine guns to mow down their Islamic fundamentalist opponents, who were generally armed with rifles and swords. The fundamentalist forces had about 35,000 men killed, while the British lost about 400.) and Amritsar, India (where, in 1919, the British forces broke up a peaceful demonstration by firing on unarmed civilians and killing 379 and injuring 1,500 of them). Professor Ferguson also does not sweep British behavior during the Boer War under the historical carpet. He discusses the concentration camps the British set up to detain the wives and children of Boer soldiers. Conditions, especially in the beginning, were horrendous and many of the women and children died from hunger and disease. (When Sir Nevile Henderson complained to Goering about the Nazi concentration camps, Goering leapt at the chance to take out a German encyclopaedia which, under the entry for concentration camp, said this: "First used by the British in the South African War"). This being said, Professor Ferguson doesn't fail to point out some of the positive accomplishments of the Empire- the introduction of free trade to areas that otherwise would have engaged in protectionism; improvement in the living standards in many of the colonial areas, due to the above and also due to British investment in underdeveloped areas; the creation of infrastructure and the introduction of democracy and Western legal principles, etc. The thing that disturbs me about some of the professional reviews of this book is the tendency to see things in black and white. Empire is bad, and that's all there is to say. Well, most things in life are not black and white. Professor Ferguson spends the majority of the book outlining the bad aspects of the Empire, and he uses maybe 25% of the book to discuss the good things. This book is analytical, well-written (Professor Ferguson has an easy, breezy, informal style and, which is always a bonus in a book written by an academic, a refreshing sense of humor), and thought-provoking. There are also many wonderful color and black-and-white photographs which complement the text nicely. The only reason I didn't give the book 5 stars is that the ending is a bit weak. The book's subtitle is "The Rise And Demise Of The British World Order And The Lessons For Global Power." The conclusion is supposed to provide the lessons, but doesn't. Professor Ferguson makes the mistake of trying to make the book "relevant" to today. He should have left well-enough alone and stuck to just talking about the Empire. He makes the obvious point that the United States is the only nation capable today of having a position of global power equivalent to the position Britain used to hold. Fair enough. But what should the U.S. do with this power? Aye, there's the rub! Professor Ferguson doesn't really know, so he tosses in some vague generalities. He questions whether "...the dissemination of Western 'civilization'...can safely be entrusted to Messrs Disney and McDonald." He goes on to say, "But it (America) is an empire that 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." Well, maybe we should ask some of the people in those "backward" places what THEY want. They probably would like the capital...I'm not so sure about wanting our people and our culture. This whole subject needs a book of its own (probably many books) for a proper discussion. My key point is that Professor Ferguson does himself a disservice by tossing off comments like this, which come across as afterthoughts...especially after the clockwork, smooth analysis which flows through the rest of the book. Still, overall, this is an excellent book for anyone who wants a well-balanced and comprehensive account of the rise and fall of the British Empire.

38 of 46 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Wrong data, March 14, 2005

By	Ashok (Michigan, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (Paperback)

The case for the British empire, as in this book, often boils down to `India' and assumes that India (the Republic) and British India are one and the same. And this is the source of all misconceptions that British rule was benign with a few "warts". Or that the colonized nations wouldn't have any development otherwise.

British India covered parts of the territories of modern states of Burma (almost all of it), Bangladesh (all of it), Pakistan (>60%) and India (about 55%). It is easy to see that Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan do not rate highly in terms of democracy, human rights, rule of law, free markets, economic progress, infrastructure, quality of life or any metric one can think of.

In the case of India, comparisons of British ruled and Indian ruled parts are almost never made. It would be instructive to do so if we are to really draw up a balance sheet of empire. Calcutta was directly ruled by the British (it was their capital for 100 years, before Delhi came under their control for the last 90 years), while they never ruled Bangalore. The British started in the eastern part of the subcontinent and ruled it for the longest period of time. That's where you find the states of West Bengal (with Calcutta as its capital), Bihar (the poorest, most backward, most lawless, most undemocratic state), Assam (very poor, ridden with ethnic conflicts, world's last natural case of small pox), Orissa (extremely poor), Uttar Pradesh (violent, poor) and the nation of Bangladesh (formerly East Bengal). These parts aren't attracting any foreign or private domestic investment and lag behind the rest of the country on every economic and social measure.

It is the rest of India, (south-west, west and north-west) ruled by Indian kings, where you find economic and social progress. Travancore-Cochin (part of Kerala state in the south-west, often referred to as the "paradox" because its social indicators are like western nations even though it is part of India), Mysore (south west, part of Karnataka state including Bangalore), Hyderabad (south-central, now part of Andhra Pradesh state with Hyderabad city as its capital, now part of the software outsourcing related economic boom), Gujarat (western most - farthest from the British, India's most industrialized state), Rajasthan (north-west, a desert and hence left alone, one of the fastest economic growth rates, tourism - of course nobody visits or recommends visiting the real British India), Punjab-Haryana (north-west, richest, green revolution). These regions have the fastest growth rates, get the most foreign and domestic investment (almost all domestic businessmen come from these parts, even in British India).

What is missing from the debate about colonialism at the popular level is comparative data between British India and Indian-ruled India. Just the knowledge that the British didn't rule all of India would spark the curiosity of most people and lead to this kind of comparison. And that would put an end to this `on balance it was a good thing' idea.

For maps of British India refer to the Digital South Asia library
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/maps/gazetteer/
(Maps from the Imperial gazetteer of India published by the British colonial government of India)

For information on the Indian economy refer to the economic survey published by the government of India
http://indiabudget.nic.in/