Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. Understanding this at the outset, you can be free to get lost in Ferguson's recounting of the battles, personalities, architecture, anecdotes and gossip Ferguson has chosen to spin his version of the British Empire.

There are some interesting bits... British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." There is the revelation that "the supreme hymn of evangelical redemption" still popular today, Amazing Grace, was written by John Newton the captain of a succession of slave ships personally responsible for shipping hundreds of Africans into slavery after his religious awaking. There is the relationship between Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds, upon which Rhodesia, The De Beers diamond fortune (Ferguson does not choose to elaborate on what this legacy of empire has meant for Africa) and Rhodes Scholarships of today can all be traced. That there are lasting legacies of empire and that these legacies are worth thinking about Ferguson makes clear.

Ferguson's tale, unburdened by citations, nearly lulls the reader into forgetting the premise upon which this vivid story is unwinding. This accessible popular history however is less benign than Ferguson's casual style intimates. Beneath this well told tale, runs a deep cultural myth, careless interpretations, omniscient assumptions and in the end a very messy thesis that stuns the reader not only with its crudeness but also with its pretense that what preceded the 16 page conclusion was 363 pages of clear supporting evidence for Ferguson's final thesis.

Ferguson states early on that, "England had a religious duty to build a Protestant empire to match the `Popish' empires of the Spanish and Portuguese" and that the "English conception of empire was thus formed in reaction to that of her Spanish rival." But these two ideas could in fact be considered exclusive. There is plentiful evidence that especially early in the process that only later became known as empire building, British actions were fueled to a large extent by its relationship with Spain. However, there is little evidence, that this in fact translated into a consensus within Britain for a rival religiously based British Empire.

There are other ideas that Ferguson is not alone among empire enthusiasts in putting forward - the strength of the British Navy and firepower, a respect for liberty, a Protestant work ethic and a respect for the free market - but these are instruments and tools of empire, that became so only in the end, after historians looked back and said, "look what has been created." Of other ideas and circumstances throughout history that played a role, battles that were not forgone conclusions and ideas that also shaped the modern world, Ferguson neglects or mentions them derisively. Describing Sir Stafford Cripp, Labour politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer following WWII, Ferguson remarks that he was "as dogmatic a Marxist as only a millionaire can be." And that's it for Marxism, an idea that Ferguson apparently deems otherwise largely irrelevant in shaping the modern world.

Ferguson also disarms all the modern movements for autonomy and all efforts to throw off British colonization as mostly irrelevant. "The principle threats - and most plausible alternatives - to British rule," Ferguson asserts, "were not national independence movements, but other empires." Following history more carefully one can clearly see not only evidence to support internal and external factors in the fight for independence in former colonies but also many ways in which such struggles shaped the British Empire and continue to shape the modern world. Whether or not these struggles alone would ever have been strong enough to undermine the British occupiers, the impact of the occupied on the British Empire was and continues to be felt.

What is most nefarious about Ferguson's thesis is his dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects."

As Ferguson tells it, former British colonies were better off not only during and because of the British Empire, they have suffered in the post-colonial period precisely because it is the post-colonial period. The fine British institutions and the benefits conferred by British style law-making etc. have only mitigated this suffering. If there is any proof of this, Ferguson does not provide it with this loose chain of causality.

Ferguson notes that the British, "robbed the Spaniards, copied the Dutch, [beat] the French and plundered the Indians." He also makes it clear that most of the early ex-pats of empire were Scots and Irishmen, hoping to fare better than they did as the minority at home. And yet, even as Ferguson describes the complicated interplay within and between cultures - the sharing and stealing of information, financial systems, weapons, religion and philosophies, in the end Ferguson still somehow concludes that all of this complicated interaction proves only that one of the players, the one that had accumulated the most colorful map of empire, made the modern world.

Ferguson's Empire ends suddenly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. There is certainly widespread evidence for the impacts of the British Empire in terms of parliamentary institutions, language and religion, which Ferguson does not succinctly summarize in his conclusion. Empire instead looks back more broadly on British imperialism, casting its abuses as relative and its impacts as a largely favorable mostly one-way street, in terms of the modern world. Ferguson then uses this to justify what is needed - a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. Ferguson's Empire, read critically though, is a decent read - a bit of a romp through history - seen through the eyes of a true anglophile. Perhaps one should not fault Ferguson for his prejudicial perspective as the title of his book makes it clear there will be no attempt to hide it. The reader, understanding this from the outset, should be free for the most part to get lost in Ferguson's recounting of the battles, personalities, architecture, anecdotes and gossip Ferguson has chosen to spin the tale of the British Empire.

And Ferguson can tell a story. There are British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." There is the revelation that "the supreme hymn of evangelical redemption" still popular today, Amazing Grace, was written by John Newton the captain of a succession of slave ships personally responsible for shipping hundreds of Africans into slavery after his religious awaking. There is the relationship between Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds, upon which Rhodesia, The De Beers diamond fortune (Ferguson does not choose to elaborate on what this legacy of empire has meant for Africa) and Rhodes Scholarships of today can all be traced. That there are lasting legacies of empire and that these legacies are worth thinking about Ferguson makes clear.

Ferguson's style brings this history to the masses. Rather than a dry and overly scholarly tale Ferguson tells the British story in a colorful and even a bit cheeky way. The early fortunes of the British Empire he asserts were "built on a huge sugar, caffeine and nicotine rush." And highlighting the difference between early settlers in North America and those that came later, he quips that their reason for crossing the Atlantic was "not God but cod."

And this accessibility, this enjoyable every man's history of the British Empire, unburdened by citations, should be a great thing. In fact, Ferguson's tale nearly lulls the reader into forgetting the premise upon which this vivid story is unwinding. This accessible popular history however is less benign than Ferguson's casual style intimates. Beneath this well told tale, runs a deep cultural myth, careless interpretations, omniscient assumptions and in the end a very messy thesis that stuns the reader not only with its crudeness but also with its pretense that what preceded the 16 page conclusion was 363 pages of clear supporting evidence for Ferguson's final thesis.

Ferguson states early on that, "England had a religious duty to build a Protestant empire to match the `Popish' empires of the Spanish and Portuguese" and that the "English conception of empire was thus formed in reaction to that of her Spanish rival." But these two ideas could in fact be considered exclusive. There is plentiful evidence that especially early in the process that only later became known as empire building, British actions were fueled to a large extent by its relationship with Spain. However, there is little evidence, that this in fact translated into a consensus within Britain for a rival religiously based British Empire.

There are other ideas that Ferguson is not alone among empire enthusiasts in putting forward - the strength of the British Navy and firepower, a respect for liberty, a Protestant work ethic and a respect for the free market - but these are instruments and tools of empire, that became so only in the end, after historians looked back and said, "look what has been created." Of other ideas and circumstances throughout history that played a role, battles that were not forgone conclusions and ideas that also shaped the modern world, Ferguson neglects or mentions them derisively. Describing Sir Stafford Cripp, Labour politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer following WWII, Ferguson remarks that he was "as dogmatic a Marxist as only a millionaire can be." And that's it for Marxism, an idea that Ferguson apparently deems otherwise largely irrelevant in shaping the modern world.

Ferguson also disarms all the modern movements for autonomy and all efforts to throw off British colonization as mostly irrelevant. "The principle threats - and most plausible alternatives - to British rule," Ferguson asserts, "were not national independence movements, but other empires." Following history more carefully one can clearly see not only evidence to support internal and external factors in the fight for independence in former colonies but also many ways in which such struggles shaped the British Empire and continue to shape the modern world. Whether or not these struggles alone would ever have been strong enough to undermine the British occupiers, the impact of the occupied on the British Empire was and continues to be felt.

What is most nefarious about Ferguson's thesis is his dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects."

As Ferguson tells it, former British colonies were better off not only during and because of the British Empire, they have suffered in the post-colonial period precisely because it is the post-colonial period. The fine British institutions and the benefits conferred by British style law-making etc. have only mitigated this suffering. If there is any proof of this, Ferguson does not provide it with this loose chain of causality.

Ferguson notes that the British, "robbed the Spaniards, copied the Dutch, [beat] the French and plundered the Indians." He also makes it clear that most of the early ex-pats of empire were Scots and Irishmen, hoping to fare better than they did as the minority at home. And yet, even as Ferguson describes the complicated interplay within and between cultures - the sharing and stealing of information, financial systems, weapons, religion and philosophies, in the end Ferguson still somehow concludes that all of this complicated interaction proves only that one of the players, the one that had accumulated the most colorful map of empire, made the modern world.

Ferguson's Empire ends suddenly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. There is certainly widespread evidence for the impacts of the British Empire in terms of parliamentary institutions, language and religion, which Ferguson does not succinctly summarize in his conclusion. Empire instead looks back more broadly on British imperialism, casting its abuses as relative and its impacts as a largely favorable mostly one-way street, in terms of the modern world. Ferguson then uses this to justify what is needed - a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

Ferguson's book titled "Empire" sets out to discuss the rise and fall of the British Empire in less than 400 pages, a large percentage of which are pictures. As you can guess from that sentence, he doesn't do a very good job in my opinion convincing me of anything. I will admit that the illustrations that were picked are excellent, and he generally hits all the major points along the empire trajectory, producing some interesting quotes from the various eras. Unfortunately, this is too much of a coffee table book to produce serious discussion. His central thesis, that the empire was superior to the alternatives at the time, is an interesting one, but unfortunately I cannot say that he backed it up that well. This is worth a library checkout, to read through and examine the pictures.

Ferguson has written a thouroughly readable and informative book on one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The fact that ignorant left-wing critics everywhere ceasessly cite the negative aspects of this accomplishment merely underscores their unwillingness to engage in critical analysis by comparing the British empire to other empires throughout history. "compared to what?" is the operative question that seems to evade the reasoning of these "nattering nabobs of negativism."

As Ferguson points out, it wasn't colonialism that thwarted progress in .i.e the African countrie, it was the culture of the "big man," the tyranical dictator du jour. America, Canada, NZ, Hong Kong, and Australia were all colonies of the empire and they've done very well thank you. Why can't these liberal-lefty critics get it? The answer is that their need to feel morally virtuous supercedes any search for truth via the hard facts.

There are many books positing why the west got rich and why capitalism, a naturally occuring spontaneous ordering, has prevailed as the greatest economic system of all, the one that has created the greatest surplus for all of the people. However, Ferguson concludes his tome by noting that what took 300 years to build was taken down in a mere 30 years by the overwhelming wartime expenditures of WWI and WWII.

That the British empire unfairly treated many of its enemies is without question, but what continues to be debated "is compared to what or whom?" Those who cite specific instances of brutality have their point and who wouldn't harbor hatred for the kind of imperious and arrogant treatment one can pin on the Brit's, but from the standpoint of the overall picture one must not let specific instances invalidate the whole as it relates to the advancement of civilization. And, I might point out that these same critics remained silent in the face of the comment by Stalin that "to make an omelet one has to break a few eggs."

This is a well written encapsulated history of the British empire and should be part of the reading material in any college history course on western civilization, a subject (unfortunately) continually avoided by the left-wing gatekeepers in academia.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of what they believed to be an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. Even thousands upon thousands of decent, honest Irishmen came to fight for Empire. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age (and I genuinely mean that with no hint of insult, but it's a fact). The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

And guess what else? INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT IN ALL WARS AND CONFLICTS. Just ask the Americans about Viet Nam and Iraq or any country who've pulled a trigger. Who of you will be the first to volunteer your own onto the war crimes stage? Exactly.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness are pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of what they believed to be an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. Even thousands upon thousands of decent, honest Irishmen came to fight for Empire. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

And guess what else? INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT IN ALL WARS AND CONFLICTS. Just ask the Americans about Viet Nam and Iraq or any country who've pulled a trigger. Who of you will be the first to volunteer your own onto the war crimes stage? Exactly.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness are pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not more `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made. So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and in pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently not. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?
A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt is the disease that's been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these countries have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, was more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside that they came into the fray.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the demise of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from the fact. . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not more `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made. So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and in pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently not. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?
A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt is the disease that's been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these countries have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, was more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside that they came into the fray.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the demise of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from the fact. . Shame. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Ferguson's EMPIRE is well-written, like all of his work. It is not a comprehensive look at the details of expansion and conquest--there are other books readily available for that--but instead looks at the empire as a process. Thus, he focuses on key figures and locations, primarily India and Africa. One gets a good sense of who was behind the imperial drive, and what the drive for empire was all about. It is, however, a little bit too "pro-Empire." To be sure, Ferguson acknowledges that imperialism had its nasty side (especially against the Boers). However, we don't get much of the violence and cruelty that characterized British expansion and conquest, which very much should have been included. Also, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland are barely touched on. Its still worth the read for sure, but must be used as a framework around which much else should be read.

Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. The hardback edition of the book which I read had a textbook quality to it physically, more of a squared geometry, with glossy paper and text layout resemling a history textbook. However, the writing style was definitely not of a textbook. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events, often diametrically opposed to the standard ideas. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII. This contrasts with the mainstream view of the freedom movement promoted by Gandhi which eventually ended a repressive, exploitive British rule.

Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the typical stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.

Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. By agreeing to keep out of Hitler's conquest of the European continent, Britain most likely could have kept her vast empire, ironically at it's largest size right when Britain was least capable of protecting it. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.
Not only did Great Britain pay perhaps the highest price for the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, she also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders (such as the Suez military campaign in 1956) and numerous Independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the British empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.

Why should we feel sorry for the demise of an empire? Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that while this has happened in the long history of civilization, empires are not all evil, and in fact the British empire was in the end a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.

Throughout the book, comparisons were made between the past British empire with the current "empire" of the United States. This is indeed an intriguing comparison, and in fact is the subject of another of his books- "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire".

For those whose interests point in this direction, I can recommend this book as a thoughtful, if at times controversial story of a deceased Empire that left an indelible stamp on the modern world.

Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. The hardback edition of the book which I read had a textbook quality to it physically, more of a squared geometry, with glossy paper and text layout resemling a history textbook. However, the writing style was definitely not of a textbook. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events, often diametrically opposed to the standard ideas. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII. This contrasts with the mainstream view of the freedom movement promoted by Gandhi which eventually ended a repressive, exploitive British rule.

Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the typical stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.

Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. By agreeing to keep out of Hitler's conquest of the European continent, Britain most likely could have kept her vast empire, ironically at it's largest size right when Britain was least capable of protecting it. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.
Not only did Great Britain pay perhaps the highest price for the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, she also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders (such as the Suez military campaign in 1956) and numerous Independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the British empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.

Why should we feel sorry for the demise of an empire? Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that while this has happened in the long history of civilization, empires are not all evil, and in fact the British empire was in the end a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.

Throughout the book, comparisons were made between the past British empire with the current "empire" of the United States. This is indeed an intriguing comparison, and in fact is the subject of another of his books- "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire".

For those whose interests point in this direction, I can recommend this book as a thoughtful, if at times controversial story of a deceased Empire that left an indelible stamp on the modern world.

Based on Ferguson's analysis, the growth of British Empire was in many ways serendipity. Starting by building a large private navy, based on privateers (read Pirates) and then expanding it into the British Navy, England originally got into the "Empire Business" as an offshoot of it's plundering of the Spanish and Portuguese New World Empires. Once they got good at attacking the Spanish 'Treasure Fleets' it was just one stop further to taking over some of the territory for 'security' reasons (sound familiar).

They became so good at it that at one point the British Empire ruled over 25% of the total land surface of the earth and the sun never set on the British Empire. At the same time, no other country contained a Navy that could compete with their's or their merchant fleet. For the British the Empire was a money making proposition up until the 20th century. Each of the colonies paid it's own way from trade or investment. It was only after almost bankrupting themselves during the two world wars, that the Empire became a millstone around their neck.

In Ferguson's conclusion, he discusses (rather jingoistically) how in the final analysis, the British brought more to the people of the 'colonies' than they even took from them; even taking into account the death and destruction that was wrought in the name of 'civilization'.

Ferguson seems to have missed three interesting and important points: 1) the British created and then ended the slave trade (though much after it stopped being economically viable), 2) they created the first major drug cartel (forcing China to open itself up to the importation of Opium from India) and, 3) that by bailing out of Africa in the 1960s, they left most of those colonies unready for independence or democracy.

As to the slave trade, many a British (and American) fortune can trace themselves back to a relative who made their money as part of either the trade in slaves or the use of them on the West Indian sugar plantations. Only at the beginning of the nineteenth century did they decide that it was an "unChristian" institution. Planters were fast to learn that it was cheaper to hire slaves as 'seasonal' workers than to take care of them from cradle to grave; because those on these islands had no choice except to go back to Africa.

The Opium War was fought in the middle Eighteenth Century to force China to allow the continued importation of Opium (through Hong Kong) into their country. It was the beginning of the long spiral of Chinese subjugation and the blueprint for how to make money by exporting large amounts of drugs into another country. Today's narco-traffickers learned their lessons well.

Lastly, one of the major problems with the African continent (and this includes the French and Portuguese) was that the colonies that were created were done so on an ad-hoc basis. Except for in a few instances (such as Egypt and Ethiopia), nations and tribes that had been adversaries for generations were lumped together in Colonies. No where did any of the colonial powers prepare for democracy, most were run by the British Colonial Office (with mostly white managers) who left little government structure behind them when they pulled out. In many cases they had raised a small tribe to prominence (because they were Christians, think the Ibo's in Nigeria) which were left with the stigma of collaborators after the British left.

For some reason, the United Nations bought the idea that none of the colonies in Africa should be allowed to break up and seek their own level of comfort in size and composition. It's as if the example of nationalism for the last hundred years in Europe never happened. Almost every country in Europe (except Belgium) is now ethnically homogenized. No one complained when Czechoslavakia had their velvet divorce; and the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia differs little from what happened in Poland and East Prussia after WW2.

It's a good read and my only real complaint is about the structure of the book. It's printed like a textbook so that the pages have lots of room for footnotes on the inside columns, but the size of the type is quite small and gets smaller when in quotation so that it can be very tiring to read for long periods. Oh well.

Good writer. It would be obvious to the reader that the author has a more positive view on British Colonism than most people who grew up in a British colony. That said, being one who came from a British colony myself, I personally think that the writer is not completely biased and I agree with some of his views. I am curious how many people in Britian shares the authors view. In the least, this will be a feel-good book for British to read. For those full of resentment on past colonial history, reading this at least will present a different point of view to you.

As a professional historian who specializes in European imperialism, I can easily explain why the book was panned by professionals, but popular with amateurs.

Ferguson is, quite simply, a great writer. His anecdotes are apt, his comments witty, and his stories are either dashing or tragic. Great stuff.

But the book is so flawed historically as to be basically useless.

I taught with it once. My students loved it for the first few chapters... but after I pointed out to them the many factual errors and especially, the MAJOR errors of omission that riddle every single chapter.... and then showed how Ferguson's re-enchantment of "empire" not only saturates but slants every single argument in the book...hey quickly lost interest in it. (And understandably so: if you can't trust the author, why waste your time reading the book, no matter how entertaining?)

For an example, read closely his section "Black and White" in the chapter "White Plague". At first glance, it seems to say that British slavery was indeed quite awful, gosh darnit bad, etc. etc. etc. But pore over it more closely, and you'll recognize that he is, in fact, working quite hard to equate the slavery (of Africans) to indentured servitude (of Europeans), both practically and (by extension) morally. (!)
This is, quite simply, wrong and wrong-headed. I can't go into all the reasons here, but trust me: if you are ever reincarnated in the 18th century, and you have the choice of coming back as a black slave or as a white indentured servant, do yourself a big favor: choose indentured servitude.

It is an "apology" of Empire in every sense of the word.

And as a historian, I find it just a bit unethical.

The best thing that can happen to a professional historian now is that he become a television "personality". This is true, of course, for all professions. I mean it is the best thing that can happen financially, I'm not sure it is the best thing for the art of the history. I don't know. The good thing is that authors are compelled to at least try to make the narratives interesting, witty and anecdotal, which Ferguson certainly did in this book. But I think the great television shallowness limits the depth of reflectiveness, and the author is inclined or required to leave out whatever might call for serious thought.

What empires indicate about mankind is not very flattering. Many phenomena in nature show the same thing from viruses to trees to corporations: one is usually made greater at the expense of someone else. The angels and the civilized are on the side of greater reciprocity, equivalent exchanges and the forces of evil and uncivilized favor pure robbery, or as much robbery as you can manage. One nation dominates another through force, superior weaponry and not superiority of character and certainly not greater good heartedness.
Ferguson makes these points in many interesting ways. He also demonstrates the racial bifurcation in British behavior towards its subjects and enemies (potential subjects). They were reluctant Imperialists in the case of the Americans: their fellow white, Protestant, English speakers, not so reluctant with the Catholic Irish - who starved to death while England watched, and not at all reluctant in regard to Asians and Africans, who were generally regarded as separate species.

Again, it's a very entertaining book and I recommend it, but I don't think he really makes his point about the good that the British Empire brought to the world. The British pretensions about the rule of law, their famous freedoms, didn't originate with them anyway. We should thank Plato, Jesus and all their disciples for ideas and principles that, in any case, the British only adhered to when it was convenient or not too painful. I don't think we owe the existence of Shakespeare to the Empire, or even Doctor Johnson. Maybe Kipling. Anyway, these great men and other great English speakers survived because the British Empire wasn't as bad as it might have been and as bad as others have been. And this is his last point, which is certainly valid, but not cause for great celebration: the Belgians in the Congo, the Japs, the Nazis and Stalin were much worse. Shakespeare, Johnson and Shelley would have been snuffed out in any of those empires.

I started this book thinking it would be an apology for the British Empire, but it really isn't. I think you should read the book and judge for yourself. It is, quite simply, an engaging, interesting, and thought-provoking read.

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.

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.

I listened to a number of Ferguson's lectures prior to my purchase. I do suggest the audio version than the book, unless you're willing to spend a large amount of time reexamining your chapters, including the wonderful pictorial aspects of this book. Niall appreciates the arts, thank you!!! Lots for everyone.

For me this was a challenge, I don't have a good grasp of English history or politics, but that is why my attention was fixated on Empire. The first half covers allot of "Pirate" stories, but as the book progresses through time India becomes an important subject, including colonization. The issues of cruelty are immense and quit critical of the the English Empire. It is that critical nature of this book that makes it a important read.