|
Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World | 
 enlarge | Author: Niall Ferguson
Publisher: Penguin Audiobooks
Category: Book
List Price: £13.00
Buy New: £6.25
You Save: £6.75 (52%)
New (14) Used (3) from £6.25
Rating:  43 reviews
Sales Rank: 364945
Format: Audiobook
Media: Audio Cassette
Edition: Abridged Ed
Pages: 4
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 5.4 x 4.3 x 1.4
ISBN: 0141804017
Dewey Decimal Number: 941
EAN: 9780141804019
ASIN: 0141804017
Publication Date: January 9, 2003
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: new, still sealed.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk Review
Niall Ferguson's compelling tour de force, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World is published to coincide with a Channel 4 TV series. Ferguson, author of The Pity of War and The Cash Nexus, does not so much provide a synoptic survey of the British empire since the 17th century, as an arresting argument about why it arose, and how it fell. Ferguson's emphasis throughout is on the pursuit of economic profit and military might. Piracy overseas and a taste for sugar and spice at home, combined with an unerring ability to vanquish rival European powers such as the Dutch and French in the dash for stash and status across the globe. But Ferguson is also alive to the peculiarities of British dominion: the manly and Christian civil service--less than a thousand strong--who ruled India, missionaries such as Livingstone, who explored and mapped as they preached and the barons of empire--Rhodes, Curzon, and Kitchener--who found in empire an outlet for their homoeroticism. The book is brilliant and persuasive on trade and buccaneering before 1750, on India, on the late Victorian imperial mentalité, and on the two world wars, but less convincing on the empire of white settlement, and strangely silent on the most difficult colony of all, Ireland. In the end, Ferguson's penchant for polemic gets the upper-hand--the book closes with a controversial balance-sheet of the gains and losses of the British imperial experience--but he provides a riveting read nonetheless. --Miles Taylor
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 38 more reviews...
 highly entertaining, though seriously flawed July 3, 2008
another reader
There are, however, some serious factual errors. The British empire allowed famines in India that killed millions of people even while food was exported from that country. Preferential tariffs seriously impaired the textile industry in India so that British textile imports to the subcontinent could flourish.
And Ferguson's assertion that Britain willingly sacrificed its empire to preserve democracy at home is pure fantasy. The UK's anti-insurgency campaigns in Kenya and Malaya in the postwar period do not fit the model of noble sacrifice of empire, so he simply ignores these wars.
Ferguson writes well and vividly, but his love of British imperialism impels him to some strange positions. For a thorough critique of this book, see Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis, chapt two.
 A rebuttal to Grateful's earlier "review"! July 3, 2008
Darren O'Connell (Perth, WA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
In appears that Grateful has neither read the book properly or is blinded by past biases. All six comments are either fabricated or out of balance with the historical record, but I'll deal with the worst abuses here. For example:
Point 2: The British were not the first to use concentration camps. As per Ferguson (2002, p. 280) "These were not the first concentration camps in history - Spanish forces had used similar tactics in Cuba in 1896". This fact can be effortlessly verified from numourous sources including the internet.
Point 3: The British did not invent the modern slave trade, this dubious honour goes to the Spanish and Portugeuse. For example, in 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery which legitimated slave trade under catholic beliefs of that time. The British certainly were involved significantly in the slave trade but not until the 17th century therefore cannot claim to have invented this practice. In addition, this "reviewer" has failed to acknowledge the fact the Britain was the first to end the trade and enfore the prohibition with its navy. Also the "reviewer's" assertion that Britain slaving practices were worse that the Romans, Ottomans and Turks is clearly incorrect and is not backed up by any empirical evidence.
Point 4: The British did not "cause" the famines in Ireland or India, I would assert Mother Nature's involvement here (e.g. the late blight in Ireland was caused by the pathogen infestans, which originated in South America) but was certainly exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate some of which can be attributed to British intransigence.
Point 5: The British did not invent the modern monopoly practices or asset stripping - this achievement goes to the Spanish, Portugeuse and French, whose systems of commerce were based on absolutist monarchy and benefited the guild institutions only rather than wider society. In addition, the Ducth were accomplished asset-strippers themselves, see Indonesia. True Britain did its fair share, but it also invested vast sums of money into the developing nations of its empire including Africa and India (i.e. railways) more then than is invested by the combined first world nations today. As a result, the British can lay claim to "inventing" the market system which now forms the basis of global capitalism, the system of choice throughout the globe. The other assertions that the IR was the result of Clive's looting of Bengal are simply preposterous and not worth the effort of rebuttal (but see Harvey's work on Clive or James' work on India for a more accurate version of events).
Point 6: Not Britain's finest hour in terms of its involvement in the Middle East granted but the situation is entirely more complex than Grateful gives credit and to be honest, the strife in the ME is as much the fault of evolutional disabilities, religious hatred, bigotry and inherent cultural differences as colonial mistakes. Clearly Grateful has a handle on none of these complex interrelationships as well as little grasp of historical reality.
BTW, Ferguson's book Empire is a first rate analysis of the British colonialism and an interesting counterpoint to some of the latter day obilquy. Elegantly written with an exciting fresh narrative and much scholarly research. I think it only right for Britons and their Commonwealth cousins to "wrap" themselves "in the Union Jack" every now and again!
great book! June 4, 2008
Lindy May Mehven (london)
gives a very good overview of the british empire an the economic stages of development, i read it mainly for the territorial gains acquired by the british empire, very good book in the end.
popular history at its best April 30, 2008
Didier (Ghent, Belgium)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Apart from some isolated facts, I knew next to nothing about the British Empire before having read this book. Now I have done so I can honestly say that I at least feel to have (more than) a grasp of the basic facts, and a very good general overview of the biggest empire ever: how it came about, how it evolved, and how it came to end. And what's more, Ferguson tells this incredible tale in a most engaging and lucid style. Never a dull moment!
A breath of fresh air April 21, 2008
J. Duducu (Ruislip)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
The main issue with all of Niall Ferguson's books are do you go along with the main thesis. He's never one to sit on the fence and I think with "Empire" he does a superb job reacting to the fact that the British Empire has for too long been hijacked by many organisations to brow beat us into guilt for all manner of things. It's got to the point where the red coats are seen as some form of proto-Nazi.
Thinking about other countries, they get very misty eyed over past imperial glory- The Indians with the Mughals, the Italians with the Romans and the Turks with the Ottomans. Each one of these countries neatly glosses over the torture, slavery, extortion and war mongering and instead points to the philosophies or architecture born of their nation- the Brits don't do that. We much prefer feeling faintly embarrassed when visiting an ex-colony.
Now that's not to say that evil wasn't perpetrated under various British regimes, but these instances are far better documented than the successes of empire. This book is a great chance to reassess our impact on the world, because good and bad, like it or not it's a fair point that the world today has been shaped in a major way by Britain.
So it's nice that Niall does a very good job of pointing out the good after we've had endless opinion about the bad. It is written with great energy and dry humour and uncovers fascinating facts- the map showing the length of the telegraph cables laid by Britain virtually circling the world I think will always be there in the back of my mind. This isn't jingoistic it's just a chance to redress the balance.
|
|
|
www.pcprotech.co.uk | |
