Scan barcode
markk's review against another edition
medium-paced
1.75
Niall Ferguson is a financial historian who made a name for himself in the 2000s as a prominent spokesperson for the then-ascendant neo-conservative movement. He is also, as he details in the introduction to this book, a proud son of the British Empire, one with relatives scattered across three continents thanks to his country’s imperial past. It’s an identification that clearly helps to inform his perspective on his subject. For while he openly acknowledges the brutality and exploitation that were an indispensable part of the empire, his book is nonetheless a celebration of what he terms its “signal virtues,” declaring that “no organization in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British Empire over its long history. And no organization has done more to impose Western norms of law, order and governance around the world.”
Ferguson’s ostensible purpose is to tell the story of this “Anglobalization,” to show how such things as commodity, labor, and capital markets came to be globalized by the British Empire from the 17th to the early 20th centuries. It is here, however, that we encounter the first of the unstated assumptions in his book: that this process was not already underway prior to Britain’s arrival on the global scene. The Spanish and Portuguese empires that preceded Britain’s are presented in his text as nemeses and targets rather than mercantile competitors who were already globalizing the world through their expanding trading networks. It is of a piece with another unstated assumption, which is that the other European powers that competed with Britain simply would not have delivered the same outcome. This is particularly questionable when it comes to the Dutch, who not only embraced many of the same values as their counterparts across the English Channel, but who, as Ferguson acknowledges, were beating the English at their own game prior to their “merger” in 1688.
Such inconvenient details demonstrate that globalization was an ongoing process being driven by multiple interests rather than something that only the British could have accomplished. And perhaps Ferguson himself is aware of this, for the further one reads into his book, the more it proves less about demonstrating how the British globalized the world and more about providing a selective history of its rise and fall. To his credit he does not deny the existence of red on the empire’s ledger, acknowledging its embrace of slavery, the brutality of its conquests, and the economic exploitation of the millions it ruled. Yet he weighs this against the civilizing mission that he describes, of their efforts to “modernize” non-Western civilizations, to suppress the slave trade, to educate indigenous populations. That the scope of these efforts does not even come close to the damage done goes unmentioned, creating an assumption of a fair trade off: the deaths of millions through conquest and exploitation in return for teaching the colonials how to beat the English at cricket.
And this gets to what is perhaps the most glaring of the unstated assumptions in Ferguson’s book, which is that the “Anglobalization” he praises was little more than a side-effect of the centuries of conquest and control. The free markets he credits the British with introducing often emerge despite the restrictive fiscal and trading policies he describes rather than because of them. Ideas of the rule of law were often violated rather than upheld when it came to the violent treatment of colonial subjects. And most glaring of all is Ferguson’s citing of “liberty” as “the most distinctive feature of the Empire,” especially as, by his own admission, the British did everything within their power to prohibit it. In the respect, the most the British did to promote political liberty in their empire came in giving indigenous populations someone from whom to demand their freedom, which makes giving British the credit for this seem perverse.
Ferguson does not delve too deeply into this, as he prefers to rush through Britain’s long and regrettable history of resisting decolonization to focus instead on the lessons their empire has to offer to the United States in the early 21st century. Ferguson was hardly the first to posit the United States as a successor to the British Empire, nor is he unique in regarding this as a good thing. But the lamentable history of America’s engagement in the Middle East in the years following the initial publication of Ferguson’s book underscores the fallacies of his assumptions. Instead of securing the triumph of liberal capitalism that the author so clearly adores, the civilizing mission of the United States has bred only disillusionment and a backlash against globalization. This makes Ferguson’s book less of history of the British Empire that retains its value than a relic of a hubris which demonstrated not the success of such advancements, but the discrediting of many of its ostensible achievements. While Ferguson himself may blame the United States for this for denying its true destiny, perhaps the real lesson is that the British Empire’s success in spreading its values via conquest was in the end more myth than reality.
barts_books's review against another edition
3.0
An enjoyable, well written précis of the years covering the British Empire. My main frustration however is its length doesn't do justice to its subject; ultimately Ferguson can't quite adequately contain such a breadth of historical information in such a slim volume. For instance, events in China and the acquisition of Hong Kong are dealt with in about two paragraphs. India, justifiably gets the lions share of attention, but what about Canada, Australia, Kenya? Again the briefest of mentions.
If the reader goes in expecting nothing more than a broad canvas of interesting snippets then they will be satisfied. But those looking for a deep dive on any particular event or timeline would be better served delving elsewhere. In my opinion you will learn more about the Indian Mutiny in George Macdonald Fraser's (fictional) [book:Flashman in the Great Game|142459].
That said I liked Ferguson's writing style and will pick up another one of his should it be slightly narrower in its ambition.
3.5 stars
If the reader goes in expecting nothing more than a broad canvas of interesting snippets then they will be satisfied. But those looking for a deep dive on any particular event or timeline would be better served delving elsewhere. In my opinion you will learn more about the Indian Mutiny in George Macdonald Fraser's (fictional) [book:Flashman in the Great Game|142459].
That said I liked Ferguson's writing style and will pick up another one of his should it be slightly narrower in its ambition.
3.5 stars
wickedcestus's review against another edition
The author has three main justifications for the actions of the English:
1) They thought they were doing the right thing.
2) These actions were necessary for the spread of liberalism and democracy.
3) They weren't nearly as bad as other empires.
There is certainly evidence for the first point when it comes to certain individuals. These individuals are focused on in the book, primarily David Livingstone, probably the world's most famous missionary. Some of these people were actually trying, others were using twisted moralities as excuses for misdeeds. As always, it is hard to tell who is acting cynically, who is deluded, and who is simply not thinking at all.
As for the second point, he is correct. The question of whether this spread of Western ideals is a good or bad thing is larger than the scope of the book.
The third point is driven home extensively. He likes to pick easy prey for these comparisons: the Belgian Congo, the Russians, the Japanese. In fact, there is a certain sense in which World War II, in which the British fought the new and evil empires of the Nazis and the Japanese, is used to justify the existence of the British Empire as a whole, which is a very strange way of looking at history.
Speaking of WWII, there is a whole chapter near the end about British prisoners in Japanese POW camps during WWII in which he refers to this as the British Empire's "Passion" and "time on the cross." He goes on to question whether, with the Japanese as the alternative, it would not have been better for England to rule Asia? I think that example is very indicative of the nature of argument used in this book.
The main way to note the bias of an author is in what they omit, and what they emphasize. The book certainly documents atrocities committed by the British, and ways in which the effect of their Empire was negative to those they ruled. However, much more emphasis is placed on the reverse argument, which makes sense, because this book is in many respects a contrarian response to largely-held beliefs. It is not balanced, and the attempts to make an appearance of balance are kind of laughable, like when he continually refers to the British Empire as "not without blemishes."
The final conclusive chapter attempts to justify Imperialism on the whole, quoting Tony Blair extensively and beseeching the US to use its status as the world's only superpower to embrace its Imperial identity and spread positive change (Western ideals) throughout the world. That is a weird chapter!
With all that being said, I actually appreciate the argument of the book, despite not agreeing with it on the whole. I don't think it is a categorically ridiculous argument; however, I do think this book argues it disingenuously at times, and takes it to odd extremes. The book is best read as a counterpoint to other views on the subject, and not on its own.
1) They thought they were doing the right thing.
2) These actions were necessary for the spread of liberalism and democracy.
3) They weren't nearly as bad as other empires.
There is certainly evidence for the first point when it comes to certain individuals. These individuals are focused on in the book, primarily David Livingstone, probably the world's most famous missionary. Some of these people were actually trying, others were using twisted moralities as excuses for misdeeds. As always, it is hard to tell who is acting cynically, who is deluded, and who is simply not thinking at all.
As for the second point, he is correct. The question of whether this spread of Western ideals is a good or bad thing is larger than the scope of the book.
The third point is driven home extensively. He likes to pick easy prey for these comparisons: the Belgian Congo, the Russians, the Japanese. In fact, there is a certain sense in which World War II, in which the British fought the new and evil empires of the Nazis and the Japanese, is used to justify the existence of the British Empire as a whole, which is a very strange way of looking at history.
Speaking of WWII, there is a whole chapter near the end about British prisoners in Japanese POW camps during WWII in which he refers to this as the British Empire's "Passion" and "time on the cross." He goes on to question whether, with the Japanese as the alternative, it would not have been better for England to rule Asia? I think that example is very indicative of the nature of argument used in this book.
The main way to note the bias of an author is in what they omit, and what they emphasize. The book certainly documents atrocities committed by the British, and ways in which the effect of their Empire was negative to those they ruled. However, much more emphasis is placed on the reverse argument, which makes sense, because this book is in many respects a contrarian response to largely-held beliefs. It is not balanced, and the attempts to make an appearance of balance are kind of laughable, like when he continually refers to the British Empire as "not without blemishes."
The final conclusive chapter attempts to justify Imperialism on the whole, quoting Tony Blair extensively and beseeching the US to use its status as the world's only superpower to embrace its Imperial identity and spread positive change (Western ideals) throughout the world. That is a weird chapter!
With all that being said, I actually appreciate the argument of the book, despite not agreeing with it on the whole. I don't think it is a categorically ridiculous argument; however, I do think this book argues it disingenuously at times, and takes it to odd extremes. The book is best read as a counterpoint to other views on the subject, and not on its own.