Empire - How Britain made the Modern World
Empire - How Britain made the Modern World by Niall Ferguson
Allen Lane, 2003
Just finished reading this book of the TV series. It is an interesting introduction to the history of the British Empire - perhaps a little too introductory if you have much knowledge of the period. It gets better towards the Victorian period, and the discussion on the future of Imperialism is quite good.
The question he seems to set himself is 'Was the Empire a Good Thing?'
He does depict the use of force and the rascism of some of the Imperialists and the use of the Maxim Gun. He also shows that the Empire was held by the British with a remakrably low military budget. Among the advantages of Empire was the provision of free trade, an impartial civil service and a relatively high standard of government IF you compare it with the alternatives. He suggests that economically the Empire was a good thing and shows that many Empire territories have declined since the end of Empire. He seems to discount the idea that this is the Empire's fault.
His main argument are that the alternatives are not Empire or no Empire but which Empire. Put in this light the British Empire was the best choice, the alternatives, at least in the 20th Century, being a German or Japanese control and that compared to the Belgiums and the Boers English rule was relatively benigh.
He suggests that Imperialism may not have ended and, although, America seems adverse to controlling other nations directly, she may in fact be setting up the next age of Empire.
What is thought provoking is the contrast between the treatment of the white colonies with the other colonies. The Empire was very successful (apart from the US) in giving self rule to the white colonies. The question is why could the British not repeat this with indigenous populations? The probable answer is intrinsic racism. The white colonies were able to point to the British tradition of liberty and representative represeentation, and the British accepted self rule of what became the Dominions. With native regimes, the policy was to rule through the native instutions - usually through the Chief's and Rajahs who were enriched but stripped of autonomy. Had Britain brought in representative govertnment and brought on board a rising middle class perhaps things might have been different.
Allen Lane, 2003
Just finished reading this book of the TV series. It is an interesting introduction to the history of the British Empire - perhaps a little too introductory if you have much knowledge of the period. It gets better towards the Victorian period, and the discussion on the future of Imperialism is quite good.
The question he seems to set himself is 'Was the Empire a Good Thing?'
He does depict the use of force and the rascism of some of the Imperialists and the use of the Maxim Gun. He also shows that the Empire was held by the British with a remakrably low military budget. Among the advantages of Empire was the provision of free trade, an impartial civil service and a relatively high standard of government IF you compare it with the alternatives. He suggests that economically the Empire was a good thing and shows that many Empire territories have declined since the end of Empire. He seems to discount the idea that this is the Empire's fault.
His main argument are that the alternatives are not Empire or no Empire but which Empire. Put in this light the British Empire was the best choice, the alternatives, at least in the 20th Century, being a German or Japanese control and that compared to the Belgiums and the Boers English rule was relatively benigh.
He suggests that Imperialism may not have ended and, although, America seems adverse to controlling other nations directly, she may in fact be setting up the next age of Empire.
What is thought provoking is the contrast between the treatment of the white colonies with the other colonies. The Empire was very successful (apart from the US) in giving self rule to the white colonies. The question is why could the British not repeat this with indigenous populations? The probable answer is intrinsic racism. The white colonies were able to point to the British tradition of liberty and representative represeentation, and the British accepted self rule of what became the Dominions. With native regimes, the policy was to rule through the native instutions - usually through the Chief's and Rajahs who were enriched but stripped of autonomy. Had Britain brought in representative govertnment and brought on board a rising middle class perhaps things might have been different.
Comments