Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World

Niall Fergusson is a famous believer in capitalism and progress, but on many occasions he admits to its failings. This book provides a succinct, very readable, accurate and illuminating history of the rise and fall of the British Empire. It describes in detail numerous atrocities, especially in the 'Scramble for Africa'. Its major weakness is its willingness to think that the British Empire was on balance a good thing - spreading English law and democratic political institutions around the world, as if, for example, had India not been conquered it could not have invented anything for itself. He does however say that whilst Britain ruled India, Indian GDP rose by 14% whilst British GDP rose 347%. Most people would not think this evidence of a good outcome for the people of India.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is aimed at the general reader. (If you want something more academic, try John Darwin or Ronald Hyam.) Ferguson's style is clear and entertaining. Although the book is not aimed at academics it has a useful bibliography and index. The book is a lot more detailed and nuanced than the accompanying TV series, and therefore more interesting.Ferguson has attracted a lot of abuse for daring to say that the intentions and impact of the imperialists were not always negative for those on the receiving end. If you are not prepared to consider that argument, you won't like this book.In making his argument Ferguson makes a number of points.First, the empire extended over a long time.Secondly , it also covered many different geographic areas (eg: India is a different case from Canada).Thirdly, the motivations of the individual empire builders varied widely by time, place and individual. Henry Morgan went out to loot Spanish gold and run slave plantations. He is difficult to fit into the same box as high-minded nineteenth century evangelicals dying (literally) to save souls; or utilitarians keen to educate their subjects.It is therefore pointless to generalise by saying "the British Empire was a bad thing" or "the British Empire was a good thing". In each case when, where and who are you talking about?Ferguson argues that in judging the British empire builders, whether by the values of their own time or the values of today, we should consider what the most likely alternative was in the time and place in question. Would Indians have fared better under Japanese occupation in 1943? He suggests that the citizens of Nanjing would have been happy to swap. Was Shaka’s mfecane better for the Basotho than British rule? Was Zambia relatively better off under British rule in 1955, when its GDP per person was 1/7 of that of the UK, or in 2003, when its GDP per person was 1/28 of that of the UK? Would Native Americans have been better off under the Spanish or French? Because those were the most realistic alternatives. To adapt Churchill, the British Empire was the worst form of government - except for many of the other forms of government which have been tried from time to time.If these arguments persuade you to look on the British Empire with an open mind, you may also like Jan Morris's "Pax Britannica" trilogy (slightly dated in style, but full of excellent anecdotes). Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" has very interesting observations on empires' role in uniting ever larger groups of people.If you are looking for a rhinoceros in the imperial china shop, then George Macdonald Fraser's novels "Flashman at the Charge" and "Flashman in the Great Game" do a brilliant job of bringing the Victorian empire to life. Patrick O'Brian's "Master and Commander" does the same for the Napoleonic wars. (Getting one-up on the French was a major cause for the expansion of the Empire.) "The Four Feathers", filmed in Technicolor, in the Sudan, in 1939, is a fictionalised version of the Anglo-Egyptian invasion of the Sudan following the death of General Gordon. It is interesting to see the Empire depicted by actors who were still living it.

Recibí el paquete antes de lo esperado y el producto respondió a la espectativas

Great book. Only small problem is that's written by the most ego-centric and brit-centric historian in the world. He does not even TRY to hide it. I love it anyway.

I like how the author has been able to corelate the events and focus on the changes that have lasted as a result of those events. Very well written. Although the binding quality could be better. It is a massive book and by the time I finished reading it, some pages are starting to come out already.