Scan barcode
A review by wickedcestus
Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World by Niall Ferguson
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.