Most of what I've previously read about Theodore Roosevelt (most recently Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris) bought into the image that was deliberately crafted by Roosevelt, however Bradley goes much deeper in attempting to uncover the man behind the image. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that over 100 years ago politicians were deliberately manipulating the press to craft an image that would impress the electorate, much as is done today, but somehow Roosevelt has escaped the scrutiny that Bradley now brings to bear. I found the book informative and well researched, and the conclusions that Bradley draws are new and provocative. Judge for yourself if you agree with him, but I like the background and perspective he places on what the Japanese were thinking almost 4 decades before Pearl Harbor, and how Roosevelt's and Taft's actions may have influenced the direction of subsequent events.

I appreciated the author's previous books so this one was a great disappointment. Despite the title of the book, very little of the contents are actually devoted to the "cruise". The subject seems to get lost amongst all the very one-sided attacks on western civilization, Christianity, the United States and most of all Theodore Roosevelt. Among inumerable personal and political failings repeatedly pointed out by the author you will learn that TR himself was actually the one person most responsible for starting the Second World War in the Pacific theater. All this time I'd been led to believe that Japanese aggression in China and throughout the Pacific had more to do with bringing on the war. Oh, and there was that incident at Pearl Harbor, according to Bradley the Japanese were just following the example set by the Aryan controlled United States. A more balanced recounting of the historical events in question would have done far more to lend some credit to the author's viewpoint. As written the knowledgable reader is led to question most all of the author's recounting of events along with his conclusions.

Wish I hadn't.

Nasty revisionist stuff.

I can get all the made-up history attributing retrospective motives I want from other sources.

Story of a cruise taken by William Howard Taft on a diplomatic mission throughout the Near East. He was accompanied by President Theodore Roosevelt's willful daughter Alice. Alice's presence was a smoke screen to divert attention from Taft's mission to negotiate with countries contrary to the U. S. Constitution.

The book didn't follow a chronological path which was difficult to follow. A lot of illicit activity by our forefathers.

WOW! What a read that was. Eye opening, mind blowing, madness, and illegal! And to thing FDR would have to try and hold back the overwhelming tide of Teddy's behind the sense nonsense only a few short years later. Great work by Bradley!! I wont give it away, this is a MUST READ! Only then you'll learn about the Pacific war

Having read James Bradley's other books I really looked forward to this one. What a waste of time. Bradley clearly has his own agenda and tries to make every "fact: he presents fit into to his view. It gets boring about the third chapter. There was a good story here trying to get out, Bradley just somthered it will distortions and little historical balance. Don't waste your time.

When I began to read this I got angry as it went against my belief of Teddy Roosevelt.
But as I went on the logic of the feelings of early 20th Century leaders became clear and I came away with a much better understanding of foreign policy for the first 2/3 of the century.

I thought I knew a great deal about TR and his effect on American policy. However this book reveals aspects of TR's private ,political life I was not aware of. Fascinating.

Prior to reading this book I liked, and still liked James Bradley's work. He used to write fair and balanced books, this book is nothing but a rant about colonialism and racism and has very little true basis in fact and a great deal of basis in anger and venom. By Mr. Bradley's estimate, World War II was the inevitable result of U.S. policy in the Pacific and was basically our own fault. I didn't quite see how we were responsible for Nanking and the Bataan Death March but I am sure it's in there.

No one argues that colonialism was a cake walk but Mr. Bradley chooses to ignore the fact that the Germans were all set to take over in the Philippines and The British wanted Hawaii to remain independent so they could take over Pearl Harbor. Neither one of these two nations left their colonies in anywhere near as good a shape as the U.S. did with the Philippines. No it seems like he's taken up the Neil Chomskey torch and everything the US has ever done in its history was wrong and only for its own selfish gains.

Don't bother reading this book. It is one of the most poorly written of the year.

I have not read This book ( I plan to )
But after Reading " African Game Trails " A book written in TR's hand, The comments he made about African Natives and how the " White Man " could improve their lot, I would say Yes, He was pretty much a Racist. probably normal for the times and of the Japanese they did seem to have it all together, so to speak. After all they fooled the hell out of the US Military as to their fighting/Flying and above all their ship building ability. it took the US until the very end of WWII to produce a torpedo that even then never was a match for the " Long Lance "

Seldom have I read a book whose every pore oozes spite and venom. In this book, there are no heroes in the author's view.

Ostensibly, the book details the Asian cruise of William Howard Taft and Alice Roosevelt. However, I don't think that material covers more than 10% of the book. The rest is a relentless diatribe against all the white races of the world for their craven Machiavellian wickedness.

More than that, even the "black" races (which apparently includes all Asians) are either arguably evil with possible mitigating circumstances (the Japanese) or hapless, helpless dupes (Filipinos, Koreans and Chinese).

I suppose there's a dram of truth in the author's ocean of venom. We are, after all, a highly successful species of apes that artfully combine exquisite communication and social skills with an unlimited capacity for aggression. But, let's be realistic, the sins of the world do not all originate with bad white guys.

The author clearly has severe psychological problems. I'm not an expert but perhaps he has trouble living up to his image of his father and has solved the problem by negating his father as being just one more cog in a bad white guys' war.

Only comment is that after thirty pages of biased drivel I chose to waste my time on something else.

Mr Bradley filled his book with cynicism, sarcasm, and anger. That was unfortunate since it could have been an important contribution to understanding this era. As it is, Imperial Cruise comes off as another angry anti-American rant.

If you want to maintain a rosy-eyed view of American origins and expansion, I recommend that you skip this book. Bradley's account of the American journey into the Philippines exposes the dark side of American "manifest destiny." He also documents the idea of white Teutonic racial superiority, a mindset adopted by Theodore Roosevelt and a good number of Americans a hundred years ago. (Some of the cartoons and advertising are chillingly racist.)

My problem with this book is that, while Bradley complicates our understanding of American history by exposing the violence of our expansion, he does not complicate the picture quite enough. The Hawaiians, Filipinos and Japanese are portrayed as idyllic and serene before the onslaught of American visitors. We corrupted the natives and destroyed their peaceful existence.

In other words, sin and destruction began with America and then spread to the rest of the world. But a closer look at Japanese and Filipino history tells another story. Bradley clearly sees the pervasive influence of American sinfulness, but unfortunately he does not extend that sinfulness to the people we subjugated. It's as if his spectacles are only near-sighted but not far-sighted.

Another problem here is that Bradley too often holds together "White" and "Christian" in a way that condemns all missionary activity as inherently imperialistic. He quotes from a Chinese man complaining that while American missionaries preach love in China, the American government persecutes Chinese immigrants. But instead of seeing such a statement as vindicating missionary work by women like Lottie Moon (who adapted to China's way of life rather than convert the Chinese to American-style freedom), Bradley continues to perpetuate the myth that all missionaries were imperialistic and money-hungry.

Politics aside (and I am a staunch 48 year old republican) this book portrays well documented public sentiment concerning the country's moral tone, opinion of other races and sovereign nations and the desire to bring Anglo Saxon ways to the world in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It lays out how we may have misrepresented our intentions to nations that prior to this era had very few dealings with us. There is ample notation, photographs, copies of pamphlets that lend creedence. If read without judgement it is not only a fascinating look into that era in US history, it has given me much to think about as to how, when and what percipitated the changes to bring us to the culture we are today.
Yes, there are parrallels to today with our involvement in Iraq, Vietnam and Afganisthan, but you would have to be blind NOT to see the difference in tone concerning warfare and the care taken to protect the general population and respect a countries culture. This book enlights and educates and I do not find it preaches in the least. It sheds light to a time in American history that may not have been a shining moment in our history.

I get a laugh out of the complaints about this excellent book from conservatives & flag wavers. One reviewer cites the author's "anger and contempt for TR and anything or any body white and American" Total paranoia, typical of the Limbaugh "why is everybody picking on us poor white males?" whining.... the book concerns Roosevelt, Taft, etc, not in the least touching on the run of the mill Caucasian.
Is the book a one-sided polemic? Hell, yea. Its needed to contradict the lies that perpetuate government sanctioned murder & conquest.
The truth isn't always pretty. It takes courage to face the facts... man up, righties

The Imperial Cruise is a provocative take on American Expansion in the Pacific around the turn of the century. I have a personal interest in the subject because my dad, born in 1929, came from Manila to the U.S. in his thirties. His parents or grandparents would have been aware of the climate between the U.S. and Asia at the time, although by the time the Japanese invaded the Philippines, the Americans were truly heroes to them as they rescued the Filipinos.

When I began reading the book, it seemed sensational and a bit like gossip that I didn't want to hear, so I had to force myself to stay with it. It was difficult to read. Some reviews slam Bradley for his lack in historical research, but I think after finishing the book, his purpose is more that of a detective, and perhaps one with a multicultural agenda. I did not like his literary voice. I did question at times if it weren't anachronistic. It seemed a bit disorganized until I started taking notes from the perspective of setting, characters, plot or main points (colonization in the Pacific, deceptive dealings with Asians, end results). By chapter eight, he's really on a roll.

However, having said that, I think he connected some serious dots with plausibility. Even though some of his documented quotes may or may not be taken out of context, and yes they may be used to support his agenda instead of being exposited from a larger context, I think they still reflect the prevailing ideologies of the time. All that's to say the positive aspect of the book is that it shows how important it is what we believe, that ideas lead to actions, and those ideas start developing at a young age. The author mentions Roosevelt's reading material as a child, and what he read definitely played into the personal mythology he built for himself.

The other positive aspect is the writer's demonstration of Roosevelt's coded language by an 'immersion method'. Friendship=Colonization; White Christian=Benevolent Disciplinarian (but not really so benevolent); Missionary=Paternalistic religious person who knows best. It made me understand why the words 'American', 'Christian', and 'Missionary' are often associated with evil by other countries. I also found it interesting that Arabs are not the first to make use of the U.S. educational system and then come back to terrorize it's citizens. That Roosevelt had Japanese peers at Harvard who he secretly negotiated with, which the author later connects to the bombing of Pearl Harbor is a surprising connection.

Again, I value this book because of how it illustrates the importance of ideas, especially in the context of conversations and relationships.

I thought this book might be an interesting read about some of the events leading up to the war in the Pacific in WWII. Instead I found myself reading an anti-american screed. The author seems to think every US foreign policy decision in the last two hundred years was made based on the theory of Teutonic and Aryan supremacy. If you are looking for an interesting read, pass on this one. If you are looking for another book that blames the world's problems on evil racist white americans, this one is right up your alley.

Thank you James Bradley for the Imperial Cruise. Though I couldn't care much for Theodore Roosevelt's daughter, her cruise through Asia did provide a good anchor for the narrative you were telling.

As a student of imperialism, I've always been uneasy about our own imperialist past and present. And I've been uncomfortable with the brutality of imperialists past including that of the Europeans in the Americas and Africa, Japanese in Korea, Nanking, and elsewhere and our own brutality against American Indians and others.

Your book helped me to conclude that imperialism is/was a symptom of social under-development. The reason is that for imperialism to be possible, we have see the people we conquer or subjugate as the "lesser undeserving other". That's the only way the brutality, an essential part of imperialism along with resource expropriation, can be explained.

Though Theodore Roosevelt is glorified today as the creator of the National Park system and trust busting leader of the early 20th century Progressive movement, and for this you will face many detractors who just can't accept a negative view of him, you document how his/our imperialism in taking Phillipines and cajoling Japan to take Korea and Manchuria was made possible by his misguided notion of Teutonic Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. You don't make this up, and it was hard reading for me personally, but you quote word for word from Roosevelt's own books and letters.

His racist views are symptomatic of under development because today's scientists have all but debunked old theories of racism and pinpointed all our origins to a common ancestor in Africa.

Thanks for the book.

Based on my experience with James Bradley's previous books, I ordered this one with great anticipation and eagerly awaited it's arrival.....What a letdown!.....After 158 pages of hoping for some type of redemption, I had to put it down....for good....I can't remember the last time a book proported to be historical angered me so much......I don't know what happened to Bradley to make him so obviously biased and bitter but I hope he gets over it before future literary efforts on his part......He's done great disservice to Teddy Roosevelt and the leaders of that era.....

This book was is revealing as current journalists are concerning the inside stories of their times.

James Bradley obviously has an axe to grind in this book. He is clearly incensed by the imperialistic tendencies of 19th and early 20th century America. However, his repeated and unprofessional use of inflammatory hyperbole makes his entire effort suspect.

Throughout the book, he repeatedly refers to Alice Roosevelt, the president's daughter as "Princess Alice". This is totally unjustified, inaccurate hyperbole. The entire book is an exercise in judging historical figures by modern standards.

The book covers some important history and some topics that should be better known, such as the US war in the Philippines. Admittedly, this is difficult reading for Americans, and I don't enjoy being reminded of past US arrogance and atrocities. These important topics deserve a balanced and well-documented presentation. You will find neither in this book. The author's presentation is so obviously biased that it casts considerable doubt on the "facts" presented.

I think Bradley got away with writing from the heart and shooting from the hip in his (much better) books, Flags of our Fathers, and Flyboys, and began to think that anything he wrote down about history would automatically get rave reviews. In this book he seems to be taking history personally. It's like he is personally blaming Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft for the pacific war which, 30-odd years after the events in the book, caused so much misery for his father and other soldiers, sailors and marines on both sides.

By the way, there is very little about the actual cruise in the book. Maybe five or six pages, total.

Great book! I did not think I would like it as I find history books boring often times. I brought it home from the libray for my husband, and then in a sleepless night started to read and could not put it down. Maybe America is coming of age and can look at the truth and think; and the truth certainly hurts, especially when our illusions get shattered...

Bradley also recounts how U.S. and other "Western" nations' efforts in China led (at least in part), says Bradley, to rising nationalism in China and other Asian nations as well, an event also of some (and rising) significance). This might well have occurred regardless of Roosevelt's policies, but might have taken a different form.

There is plenty of fault elsewhere for some of our blunders and setbacks in Asia. But that doesn't detract from Bradley's criticism of McKinley and Roosevelt.

The Imperial Cruise has an important historical theme, but it suffers from a variety of distractions.

The theme is the role of Theodore Roosevelt in crafting early 20th Century US policy toward the Far East and how this contributed to the descent, more than a generation later, into war with Japan. It is a story of racial prejudice, diplomatic duplicity, presidential hubris, and unintended consequences. Told well, this would have been both great reading and instructive history. James Bradley, however, does not tell it well.

The problems are manifold, beginning with coherence. The title of the book suggests that it is the story of then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft's 1905 cruise to the Far East, and perhaps how that fit into the Asian policy objectives of President Theodore Roosevelt. Using the cruise itinerary to knit together geography and policy could have been a useful literary technique, but it turns out that the cruise is incidental to the book. When, after scores of pages on other topics, Bradley occasionally returns us to Taft and his cruise, it is as often to talk about the celebrity goings-on and romantic intrigues of Taft's traveling companion, First Daughter Alice Roosevelt, as it is to connect policy to facts on the ground. Alice Roosevelt was a very interesting person, but she belongs in a different book.

Then there's the matter of style. Bradley's prose is inappropriately informal, not in the mien of an historian. He regularly refers to Theodore Roosevelt as "Teddy," or, in at least one place, "Big Stick Teddy." He refers to Japanese as "Japs." Korea's competition with Japan is "keep[ing] up with the imperial Joneses," and Japan's and Russia's rapprochement after the Russo-Japanese war is "kiss[ing] and mak[ing] up." An occasional dip into such flippancy can be useful to a writer--to set a tone for a particular passage, for example--but Bradley uses it routinely. This is unserious writing.

One of the important elements of Bradley's thesis is the extent to which American racism at the turn of the 20th Century distorted Roosevelt's perceptions of Far Eastern peoples and led to grave historic consequences. There is a strong argument to be made here, but Bradley overworks it. Whole chapters are given over to describing American racial prejudice and moral obtuseness, for example, while in contrast Filipino insurgents were "freedom fighters," Japanese nationalists were "brave samurai," and the revolutionaries behind the Meiji Restoration were "founding fathers." It is fair for Bradley to go into detail on American racism, because it is important to understanding Roosevelt and his milieu. But the hagiographies to other races tend to detract from his thesis by making him sound highly prejudiced himself. A nod to balance and objectivity would have made the argument more convincingly.

There also seems to be an attempt in a part of the book to equate America's racism and imperialism of 1905 to America's overseas wars today. Speaking of US forces' capture of Manila, Bradley says, apropos nothing, "As with Baghdad more than a century later, Americans assumed that the fall of a capital meant control of the country." First of all, not true. (I was a war planner for Operation Iraqi Freedom. We explicitly discounted this assumption.) Secondly, Baghdad in 2003 had nothing to do with Manila in 1899, so the comparison serves no purpose except as an attempt to introduce the equivalence. To reinforce it, Bradley soon afterwards refers to a torture technique used by US soldiers in the Philippines as "water boarding," even though his own citations of contemporary accounts call it "the water treatment," "water cure," or "water detail," never "water boarding." Finally, Bradley refers to Roosevelt declaring "mission accomplished" in the Philippines, not as a quote from Roosevelt himself, but rather as an evident reference to the banner flown on USS Abraham Lincoln during President George W. Bush's appearance there in May 2003. Once these modern political erratics are introduced in the middle of the book, nothing further is made of them. It's almost as if Bradley wants to accuse America today of the manifest racism of a century ago but lacks the confidence to make the charge openly. If he wants to argue for that equivalence, then that too belongs in a different book.

Despite these shortcomings, there is much to learn from this episode of American history and Bradley's account of it. Many histories of this era glide over the influence of racism; Bradley makes it a central point. There indeed was widespread American racism at the turn of the 20th Century. It had broad cultural and--via certain interpretations of Darwin--"scientific" affirmation. It did influence many such as Roosevelt to approach Far East policy with a particular slant. And there are indeed philosophical and historical threads connecting American racism and expansionism of the late 19th/early 20th Centuries to Japanese racism and expansionism of the 1930s-40s. After the particular faults of Bradley's account fade over time, it is these notions that stay in the mind, and they are valuable cautions. Had Bradley approached this theme with more an historian's eye, he might have produced a work of greater influence and broader acclaim.

The Imperial Cruise gets a B for theme, a D for plot: an important story poorly told.

The theme is the role of Theodore Roosevelt in crafting early 20th Century US policy toward the Far East and how this contributed to the descent, more than a generation later, into war with Japan. It is a story of racial prejudice, diplomatic duplicity, presidential hubris, and unintended consequences. Told well, this would have been both great reading and instructive history. James Bradley, however, does not tell it well.

The problems are manifold, beginning with coherence. The title of the book suggests that it is the story of then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft's 1905 cruise to the Far East, and perhaps how that fit into the Asian policy objectives of President Theodore Roosevelt. Using the cruise itinerary to knit together geography and policy could have been a useful literary technique, but it turns out that the cruise is incidental to the book. When, after scores of pages on other topics, Bradley occasionally returns us to Taft and his cruise, it is as often to talk about the celebrity goings-on and romantic intrigues of Taft's traveling companion, First Daughter Alice Roosevelt, as it is to connect policy to facts on the ground. A biography of Alice Roosevelt would have made good reading by itself, but it is out of place here. One gets the impression that Bradley is interested in Alice's life and wants to write about it, but he doesn't want to write a separate book.

Then there's the matter of style. Bradley's prose is inappropriately informal, not in the mien of an historian. He regularly refers to Theodore Roosevelt as "Teddy," or, in at least one place, "Big Stick Teddy." He refers to Japanese as "Japs." Korea's competition with Japan is "keep[ing] up with the imperial Joneses," and Japan's and Russia's rapprochement after the Russo-Japanese war is "kiss[ing] and mak[ing] up." An occasional dip into such flippancy can be useful to a writer--to set a tone for a particular passage, for example--but Bradley uses it routinely, and the result is a narrative that sounds unserious.

One of the important elements of Bradley's thesis is the extent to which American racism at the turn of the 20th Century distorted Roosevelt's perceptions of Far Eastern peoples and led to grave historic consequences. There is a strong argument to be made here, but Bradley overworks it. While whole chapters are given over to demonstrating that Americans were, by modern standards, racist, Filipino insurgents were "freedom fighters," Japanese nationalists were "brave samurai," and the revolutionaries behind the Meiji Restoration were "founding fathers." It is fair for Bradley to go into detail on American racism here, because it is important to understanding Roosevelt and his milieu. But the hagiographies to other races tend to detract from his thesis by making him sound highly prejudiced himself.

There also seems to be an attempt to equate America's racism and imperialism of 1905 to America's overseas wars today. Speaking of US forces' capture of Manila, Bradley says, apropos nothing, "As with Baghdad more than a century later, Americans assumed that the fall of a capital meant control of the country." First of all, not true. (I was a Pentagon war planner for Operation Iraqi Freedom. We explicitly ruled out this assumption.) Secondly, except for those quaint few who still think Americans are imperialist war-mongers, Baghdad in 2003 had nothing to do with Manila in 1899. So the comparison serves no purpose except as an attempt to introduce the equivalence. To reinforce it, Bradley soon afterwards refers to a torture technique used by US soldiers in the Philippines as "water boarding," even though his own citations of contemporary accounts call it "the water treatment," "water cure," or "water detail," never "water boarding." Finally, Bradley refers to Roosevelt declaring "mission accomplished" in the Philippines, not as a quote from Roosevelt, but rather as an evident reference to the banner flown on USS Abraham Lincoln during President George W. Bush's appearance there in May 2003. Once these erratics are introduced in the middle of the book, nothing further is made of them. It's almost as if Bradley wants to accuse America today of the manifest racism of a century ago but is too timid to make the charge openly. You read this bit of veiled commentary and just scratch your head.

But in the end Bradley's theme is resonant. There indeed was widespread American racism at the turn of the 20th Century. It had broad cultural and--via certain interpretations of Darwin--"scientific" affirmation. It did animate energetic fellows such as Roosevelt to approach Far East policy with a particular slant. And there is indeed a continuum of philosophy connecting the racist American expansionism of the late 19th/early 20th Centuries to the racist Japanese expansionism of the 1930s-40s. After the particular deficiencies of Bradley's account fade over time, it is this general theme that remains, and it is a valuable caution. Had Bradley approached this theme with an historian's eye, he might have produced a work of broader acclaim and more lasting value.

One of very few historical books I have not been able to get through. It shows the Teddy Roosevelt era through revisionist eyes. Trite and boring. Yes, people in those days were racist and imperialistic, and perhaps US actions in Asia at the turn of the century did set the stage for Japanese expansion and WWII. But America and the rest of the world have changed, and progressed in many ways, since then. Teddy Roosevelt, decried as a rich white boy, a Republican, and an avid hunter, was also a pioneer in nature conservation, establishing many of our National Parks. Without him, the Grand Canyon may have been mined, and Yosemite logged.

Normally, I do not state my opinion on books, but this one is so bad and off message I had to warn future buyers. Most of the book does not discuss the cruise as the title suggests. And blaming TR policies for the World War 2 are way over the top.

James Bradley is a great writer of historical non-fiction. I have previously read and loved Flags of Our Fathers and Flyboys. My husband Ben read those two previous books with me also and we had great discussions about various historical facts we had learned. James Bradley is also a native of Wisconsin. He was born and grew up in Appleton and later graduated from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although he no longer lives in Wisconsin, I think I can count him as a "literary local." Bradley's father, John, helped raise the flag on Iwo Jima as seen in the iconic photograph. His book, Flags of Our Fathers, was the basis for the Clint Eastwood movie by the same name. It was a great movie!

The Imperial Cruise continues Bradley's look into history. In this book, Bradley investigates the roots of the diplomacy that led to World War II. Bradley believes that it all stems from the "Imperial Cruise" made by "Big" Bill Taft and "Princess" Alice Roosevelt amongst others to many nations in the Pacific.

While the Imperial Cruise is the title and main subject of the book, much time was spent on background information about the United States involvement in the Philippines, Western conflicts with China, Japan, and Korea, Teddy Roosevelt, and Alice Roosevelt. It was all very interesting information.

I particularly liked the new perspective I got of Teddy Roosevelt from this book. I knew of Teddy and his charge of San Juan Hill, Rough Rider, and tough ways. What I didn't know was that Teddy was a master of publicity and knew how to create a tough image of him to win the public's heart, which was actually far from accurate. I also loved learning more about Alice Roosevelt. I knew of her somewhat, but this book dealt on her troubled relationship with her father, as well as her life as the publicity star of her day.

I was very interested in the discussion of racist policies that the United States used towards Pacific Rim countries such as the Philippines, China, Japan, and Korea. There were many atrocities committed. I think that Bradley may have simplified matters though by blaming all bad foreign policy on racism. While racism certainly occurred, there were many other dynamics going on that should be have explored more in the novel. Also, I think that the actual imperial cruise could have used some more discussion. There was a lot of lead up to it, and it ended up being more exciting than the cruise itself.

Overall, The Imperial Cruise was a thought provoking book. I will definitely be reading James Bradley's next book about Franklin Roosevelt and China.

'The Imperial Cruise' by James Bradley provides some insight into the imperialist policies of late 19th Century America - particularly those of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt #in particular# and William Howard Taft.

The book's title itself is somewhat misleading.

'The Imperial Cruise' refers to a diplomatic mission to the Far East in 1905 led by William Howard Taft, then Secretary of War, accompanied by, among many others, Roosevelt's daughter Alice. After substantial discussion of Alice, her position in the Roosevelt family and as darling of the pop culture of the time, Bradley virtually discards her as a key character. Other than brief mentions of her attendance at various lunches and dinners she becomes a non entity, leaving us to puzzle why so much is made of her early in the book.

Although the cruise might have served as a focal point for Bradley to build his narrative around, reference to it slips and slides randomly and purposelessly into and out of the narrative as the author time warps the reader back and forth between selective snippets of historical events occurring roughly between 1850 and 1906.
These include a brief history of the Opium Wars fought between Great Britain and China #including the remarkable conclusion that 'Queen Victoria stands as history's largest drug dealer'#; the American Government's mistreatment of Chinese immigrants during and after the building of the Transcontinental Railroad; the annexation of Hawaii; the Philippine War; the St. Louis World's Fair of 1904; the Sino-Japanese War; the Russo-Japanese War.

None of these are covered in anything but summary fashion and the only common thread throughout this book is the endlessly repeated accusation of 'Aryan Supremacy' as being the reason d'etre behind every facet of Far East policy during the period.

Bradley describes at length the horrors inflicted on the native Filipinos during the Philippine War. In doing so, he underlines the point made by author Brian McAllister Linn in his definitive study 'The Philippine War 1899-1902' that 'popular histories summarize the Philipine War in a few cliches - the water cure, civilize 'em with a Krag, kill everyone over ten, reconcentration camps - all of which convey an overall impression of a conflict characterized by brutality and atrocities.'

Bradley's surface summarization of that complex conflict seems only included as an opportunity to anecdotally further his conviction of the evil inherent in Roosevelt's U.S. Far East foreign policy.

Bradley's ultimate conclusion is that secretive discussions held between Japan's emissaries and Theodore Roosevelt, conducted without the knowledge or consent of Congress, directly resulted in the absorption of Korea into the Japanese sphere of influence, World War II, the rise of Chin

I purchased this book with fond memories of Bradley's prior efforts. What a let down! This book is a biased, sophomoric effort to promote Bradley's contempt for American history. I recommend he stop drinking the "cool aid" before he authors another rant, or he will rapidly loose his following.

James Bradley is very angry with Teddy Roosevelt. How angry, you might ask? Angry enough to blame TR for WWII in the Pacific. By his actions in 1905, TR, with the help of his lackey William Howard Taft, set the nation of Japan on an inevitable road to Pearl Harbor. The 330-page book is about 200 pages of background - much of which is well-written and informative - and 130 pages of the book's essential purpose: description and analysis of the mission to the Far East led by Taft in 1905. Bradley lambastes Roosevelt repeatedly for the latter's racist thoughts and writings, always neglecting to provide the context of the time. TR's language would be offensive today, but was far less so in the late 19th century. Bradley's conclusion is that that TR's egging the Japanese on to asserting themselves in East Asia via a Japanese Monroe Doctrine and the annexing of Korea made the fighting from 1941 to 45 and the atrocities of Japan's military actions in the 1930's and 40's inevitable. This is laughable. Another 36 years of actions by Japan, the USA, Britain, and China are, in Bradley's over-heated tale, irrelevant. The book is saved by the sections on Alice Roosevelt, TR's daughter, which are funny, intriguing, and, ultimately, poignant.

As far as I am concerned, the author has zero credibility as a historian, or historian wannabe. It is far too subjective and reads like propaganda. He is guilty of judging actions of more than 100 years ago by contemporary standards. There are many good works to be read rather than waste any more time on this piece of trash.

Due to the declassification of numerous government and CIA documents wthin the past 10 years, there is simply no reason why many Americans continue living in a state of ignornce and denial as to what their own government has been up to for the past 50 years. I did not find this book hard to read, although after reading it, I understand why all lovers and admirers of the US Empire found it a bit difficult.

If you read the excellent Flags of Our Fathers or Flyboys, you already know everything important in this book. James Bradley has completely jumped the shark on this one. Basically the peace loving Confucian Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans all got along great and would have lived another 1,000 years in perfect harmony had not Teddy Roosevelt told Japan to attack Korea. Also we managed to kill off a good chunk the population of the Philippines apparently. The USA and European White Men have not always acted in accordance with 21st century morality - just ask any Native American - but this book goes way way overboard on blaming basically every bad thing in the 20th century on Teddy. The book also gets quite boring and repetitive.

While the cover and inside jacket made for a potential interesting book,the reader quickly leans that very little of the book is about the Imperial Cruise per se, but rather the cruise is simply a jumping off point to, in many cases, simply rant and rave about white Americans. (As one example, Bradley says that Roosevelt had a 'black valet' as though this was anything more than a factual statement, seemingly inserted to make the reader feel Roosevelt was a racist.) .. Beyond that, there is a real disconnect between the initial premise or promise of the book that the cruise really impacted anything, and certainly no proof at all that anything Roosevelt did had anything to do with Pearl Harbor or World War II

I like Bradley's books because he re-enacts history in tangible terms. In "Cruise" I think he obviously has a bone to pick with TR but often history is whitewashed to protect the idealism of our heroes. Bradley effectively illustrates how the United States laid claim to land based on Aryan-Christian arrogance and ethnocentrism. Unfortunately, Western thinking of occupancy was pervasive during this era and the barbarian nature of war is not a flattering reflection of American values. His recital of historical occupation of non-white dominated countries/lands is intended to suggest that we are not much different in meddling and imposing our views on countries a 100 years later. I thought Alice Roosevelt's life story was an interesting subplot and I enjoyed the stories of how the American entourage was received in Pacific rim countries. Though Bradley didn't paint a rosy picture of American occupancy, he is still a Patriot and it is important to understand the good and not so good aspects of our influence on the world.

I have enjoyed previous works of James Bradley on World War II, so I picked up this book about an earlier time period. Bradley focuses on United States colonialism around the turn of the 20th century. He looks extensively at Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft and their actions dealing with foreign relations in the Far East.

I found the book to be informative. I learned quite a bit about the history of the time period, as well as the social and racial theories adhered to by the upper class leaders of America. As other reviewers have noted, the book is heavily slanted against T.R. and American foreign policy in general. Bradley's continued focus on the Aryan theories of our leaders wore thin after the first half of the book. While we all must admit there were racial prejudices against the people of the Far East, other political and economic factors were also central to American foreign policy.

I finished this book with two feelings. First, I am glad I read it because it exposed me to a part of history I did not know a lot about. Second, I felt that the author had a very specific agenda in writing the book that took me by surprise and left a negative taste in my mouth.

Mr. Bradley has written an extremely well researched & well narrated book. Times are different now but in many ways things remain the same. If you know the actual events of the Iraq war you can see the similarities with the same type of justifications & atrocities as happened so long ago. In my opinion a true patriot is one who always loves his country, and always seeks to better it. Loving your country does not include defending the actions of the governemnt if they are indefensible. Mr. Bradley has shown us a part of our history not to be proud of. We must always seek the truth of the past in order not to be condemened to repeat it. I commend Mr. Bradley on his book & rate it a must read for all citizens of the US.

At the very end of the book is information about the James Bradley Peace Foundation and Youth for Understanding. The author is actually doing something constructive to promote global cultural understanding. Again, what a wonderful legacy to his father's memory.

"You can't blame the children for their parent's mistakes", that's what my father told my then grade school daughter about his World War II experiences for a class project. Like James Bradley's father, he was a Navy corpsman assigned to the Marines and went from Iwo Jima to a devastated Japan. Although he didn't want to talk about his combat experiences with his young granddaughter, his face lit up when he talked about the impoverished children he encountered in Japan. American and Japanese parents and grandparents certainly made many mistakes to plunge so many into suffering and death.

Apart from enjoying John Ford movies, I've always been a little leery of the mythological approach to history, which this book most certainly is not. The thousands of little people that perish are usually forgotten in the broad, historic panorama. Bradley accords them some dignity and a voice.

The only reason I gave this book one star was that I couldn't give it zero. It is more poorly written revisionist history that essentially says that America is the sole source of evil in the world and, if our country did not exist, Japan would have been peaceful, China would have never gone Communist and all Asia would be living together in perfect harmony singing "Kum Bai Ya". According to this book, it was only America's maneuvering that upset the peace in Asia that would have otherwise been. This is an absurdity. It reminds readers of the ridiculous display put up in the Smithsonian during the Carter Administration that blamed World War II on America's trade embargo on Japan and stated that Japan only wanted a co-prosperity sphere(millions of dead chinese show how far that co-prosperity went). That display was taken down because of outraged WW II vets who actually remembered Pearl Harbor. This book will also similarly outrage anyone with a real appreciation for all the good this country has done in the world. It is an insult to America and all those who fought and died in Asia on behalf of this country.

This story is not taught in history, but it should be. I was amazed at what I read, and understand more now about why the world hates us. It's a shame it takes so long for the truth to come out. It makes me wonder what's went on in recent history that we ought to know about. This is a great book.

Sometimes a writer discovers materials that have not been studied well before, or at all. For example, Alan Armstrong found papers in Pensacola several years ago that led to his book Preemptive Strike. It opened up a new world of historical knowledge for many readers of pre-World War II events. Few knew we had planned to strike Japan from China. I tried to do this with the story of Admiral James O. Richardson and the orders to place the U.S. Fleet at Hawaii in April 1940. Using his notes and 1971 book, I found new materials to insert into the argument of using Pearl Harbor. This resulted in the book, Pearl Harbor Countdown, and a subsequent manuscript called "Why At Pearl Harbor?"

James Bradley did the same with The Imperial Cruise. It is actually a study of how the United States meshed itself into Japanese affairs in the first place. Though I would have personally enjoyed more about the 1905 cruise of the American "diplomats," Bradley wove the reader through the attitudes of the times. He was perhaps too heavy on the White Christian "plan" for the world, but he got the point over that Roosevelt and his Harvard friends were sold on the inability of anyone but the Anglo-Saxons to lead a democratic, organized and sensible government effort. As a sideline, someone should write eventually on the powerful affect Harvard [Ivy League] had and has on daily life of all those in the United States.

Books written in the first decade of the 21st century seem to have an obligation to bring out tendencies today that started decades and centuries before. For example, Bradley points out the common use of water boarding or "water cure" by the U.S. Army in 1904 in The Philippines. In my "Why Pearl," I point out that water boarding some 35 years later was considered very crude and cruel when used on diplomats at the American Embassy in Japan in 1941. Ten years ago that method of torture was forgotten.

Bradley does make the reader run to books about Alice Roosevelt Longworth, and also read more on the problems Korea faced in the early part of the 20th Century. He briefly explains how Japan was secretly "given" permission by Roosevelt to take over that country, and how the Japan-Russian relationship evolved as per Manchuria.

The book has a bit more leading space between lines, so is not as long a read as it looks. Bradley's writing flows well. He jumps from the cruise to history of pertinent points of interest fairly well.

In total, it is a good read and provides to me at least new background to understand the relationship of Japan and the United States by 1940.

Skipper Steely
Author: Six Months From Tennessee
47 Years
The Raymond M. Berry Years
The Journey Across America
Pearl Harbor Countdown

Reading this book blew my mind. James Bradley makes a cogent argument for the set up of World War II.

It is highly unusual for a Caucasian to understand the depth of prejudice and racism that is present to this very day.

Like other reviews, James didn't need to use the word Jap in his own narrative. It's insulting and for that I remove one star.

For Asians living in America, James hasn't said anything new. Those frustrated with the book now have but a small taste of what it feels like to live with prejudice. This is something commonly experienced by Asian Americans despite all our contributions to America. And we live with it for all our lives. So if one is frustrated with the book, imagine how that would feel living with that frustration everyday, to be American only to have others try and tell you otherwise.

His analysis of T. Roosevelt is consistent with what I have uncovered in years past, i.e, his idea of Aryan supreme benovolence and his carefully cultivated image of a bold cowboy.

The seeds of conflict were sown during the early twentieth century. And American expansion into the Pacific is consistent with it's westward acquisition of land during the 1800's.

As with life itself, there are always shades of gray. Though land acquisition of land all the way to California was rude and crude, without the expansion we would not have our beautiful country.

In the same way, forced opening of Japan had both benefit and negative. American designs on the Pacific are in my opinion, well documented in the book. It is consistent with what I have studied about the history of America in Asia.

Bradley is repetitive but overall it's a good read and if we can learn something from the book, it is that we should not repeat the mistakes of the Roman and British Empires, both of which are gone.

I am only about 100 pages into this book, and I am trying to finish it, really I am. But enough already... I GET IT! Mr. Bradley considers TR a racist driven only by racist motivations. He repeats this claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Oh yeah, TR's daughter Alice is going on a cruise, it is mentioned once or twice. Its like driving a nail with a 16 pound sledgehammer, it may get the job done, but is serious overkill. Save your money. What a disappointment, I really enjoyed Flyboys and Flag of our Fathers.

I was enthusiastic about this book until I had gotten into the first chapter. It is not a history of secret treaties that had sown the seeds of WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and beyond. It is a revisionist and apologist treatise on racism viewed thru the lens of today's norms and completely out of the context of the times. The book suggests that actions and viewpoints of Japan, Korea, and China were forged only by encouragements and policies of the United States and particularly Theodore Roosevelt. It ignores the fact that countries act in their own interests rather than in a vacuum only partially filled by the viewpoints and policies of Roosevelt. The suggestion that our encouragement of Japans imperialist aims was directly responsible for WWII is a non-sequitur. Mr. Bradley has managed to distinguish himself and a biased historian with an agenda of hatred for this country.

This book is easy to read and well written from a story telling perspective. However, if you are looking for a definitive historical account you will be disappointed (or misled). I noticed a few points that I believe are inaccurate. For instance, page 91, "The Filipinos would not celebrate another Independence Day for sixty-four-years." is wrong. The next celebrated Independence Day was 48 years later. It is true that 64 years later the Independence day was changed from the 1946 Independence Day to be celebrated on the 1898 date of June 12, possibly this is what the Author was referring to. Unfortunately, a glaring example like this leads me to question other statements made as historical fact.

I agree with the reviewer above that says this is a tome of the author's opinions on past and current events. He makes some conclusions as to the cause of middle 20th century and after events being a direct result of the first Roosevelt administration policies that seem to be quite a stretch. I am a major history buff and I would enjoy this book much more if the author did not feel compelled to insert his opinions at every juncture and then relate them to current events of the 21st century and US presidents. It would appear that the author does not trust the reader to come to the conclusion he wants on their own that the US was imperialistic at the turn of the centuries from 19th to 20th. If you like opinionated books on politics this may appeal to you. If you like to read and study about history this may be hard reading.

Just finished James Bradley's "The Imperil Cruise" and to be honest half way through the Authors diatribe I had to force myself to get through it. Revisionist History at its finest. Selective use of facts, obviously has an axe to grind with Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. I believe Author should have stopped writing after "Flags of our Father" each successive book becomes stranger and stranger. I know that I will stop buying and reading his books. Author obviously not an educated or trained historian.

Having read James Bradley's book, "Imperial Cruise", It came to me how reluctant the American public is to admit to the mistakes our counrty has made in the past while trying to find itself. I have always said that what we did to the Indian Nations in this country equivocates to what took place during the holocaust, the difference being that we destroyed complete cultures in the process, and in the name of "civilization"...at least the Jews have Israel. We just don't seem to learn that not everyone desires our way of life. This book certainly proves that history is just a repitition of what has taken place in the past. Today we are essentially faced with the same conditions that were present in Roosevelt's day....racism is still present...our desire for self service is still present and we are going down the same road that we have always seemed to take. Eisenhower said to beware of the military-industrial complex...it was there in Roosevelt's day and it is here today....nothing seems to have changed. I love this country and I am proud to think that there are men like Mr. Bradley who are willing to put their reputation on the line so that the truth can be told. It is men like Mr. Bradley who have made this country great through his writings.