Because of the lawyerly tone, it was a little hard to get used to. But it turned out to be a good review of empires. Specifically: Persian (which she continually refers to as "Achaemenid Persia"), Alexandrian, Roman, Chinese (Tang), Islamic, Mongol, Ottoman, Spanish, Dutch, British, and American. Her main theme was that tolerance for foreigners breeds great empires, and subsequent intolerance destroys them. ( )

The subtitle of this book is “How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance–and Why They Fall”. First of all, what is a “hyperpower”? The author defines a “hyperpower” (a word first used regarding America by a French foreign minister) as being analogous to “world-dominant power”. Very few societies, or countries, in history have accomplished “hyperpower” status.

What are some examples of past and present hyperpowers? How did they start? And why did past hyperpowers eventually decline or fail?

The author, Chua, opines that the growth of hyperpowers have had something in common: tolerance. Tolerance, of course, is a relative term–more of that in a moment. Simply being tolerant doesn’t guarantee hyperpower status (for one thing, some countries are simply too small to be a hyperpower), but it seems to be one critical ingredient.

The reasons for the decline of an empire always has complex and varied reasons. However, Chua shows that– perhaps not coincidentally– when a hyperpower becomes xenophobic, or intolerant, it is part of the beginning of the end of that empire.

From this viewpoint, Chua analyzes the history of several past hyperpowers. She also discusses America’s current status as a hyperpower and questions whether it can continue to be one. Let’s look at some examples from the book, but before we do that, let’s look again at the meaning of “tolerance” as used in the book.

Chua acknowledges that tolerance was and is a relative term and doesn’t necessarily mean total respect for different cultures. As she says:

“…..I’m not talking about tolerance in the modern, human-rights sense. By tolerance, I don’t mean political or cultural equality. Rather, as I will use the term, tolerance simply means letting very different kinds of people live, work, and prosper in your society–even if only for instrumental or strategic reasons. To define the term a little more formally, tolerance in this book will refer to the degree of freedom with which individuals or groups of different ethnic, religious, racial, linguistic, or other backgrounds are permitted to coexist, participate, and rise in society.”

Chua adds that “ no society based on racial purity, religious zealotry, or ethnic cleansing has ever become a world-dominant power”. She cites Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as examples, devoting a chapter later in the book to these two temporary powers.

The examples in the book are basically chronological. It starts with the Persian Empire, which was founded by Cyrus the Great, and its’ rapid decline after Alexander the Great’s death. Next, it covers ancient Rome.

During Rome’s Golden Age, religious diversity was generally acceptable, as it was during the Persian’s Empire’s ruling days. However, Romans did have some limits to what was considered acceptable–they banned the Druid practice of human sacrifice, for example. Also, after Augustus conquered Egypt, he banned the worship of the dieties associated with Antony and Cleopatra.

With the emergence of Judaism and Christianity, religious acceptance in the Roman empire changed. Later Roman emperors became less accomodating towards these two religions–Hadrian banned circumcision and the teachings of Jewish Law, and Caligula forced some Jews to eat pork. Many Christians were persecuted, until Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. Then the tables were turned, and almost everyone except Christians were persecuted. During this time, ethnic conflicts started to rise, especially towards Germanic tribes (including the Goths, Franks and Saxons) immigrating into the Roman terroritories. These conflicts marked the beginning of the end of the Roman empire, although of course there were also many other factors (theories include lead poisoning and the like) that led to its’ decline.

Ancient China is also examined in this book. The Great Mongol Nation as ruled under Genghis Khan allowed absolute freedom of worship for everyone. During his rule, Genghis Khan continued to annex different tribes and ethnicies into his nation. To prevent ethnic divisions, he would arrange marriages between his own children and tribal leaders who joined his nation. After Genghis Khan’s death, the Mongol Nation eventually fragmented, due to many reasons, including the Bubonic Plague. However, during its’ decline (which occurred over a few hundred years), religious intolerance became an issue as it did during the end of the Roman Empire. In addition, non-Chinese customs, religions, and ideas were cracked down upon and the use of foreign languages were banned.

Part Two of the book includes further examples of the rise and decline of powerful nations. Sixteenth-century Spain started to decline after the Spanish Inquisition which targeted Jews and Muslims, killing or driving most of them out of the country. Another example includes how Great Britain lost Ireland from its’ empire, because of too little religious tolerance towards the Irish (Ireland was predominantly Catholic while the Scots, Welsh, and English were mostly Protestant).

Part Three is titled “The Future of World Dominance”, covering America and other current governments such as modern-day China and India — and the European Union. Chua points out that a country joining the European Union must show that it observe human rights and fundamental freedoms (tolerance), in addition to meeting certain economic and political criteria.

In discussing America, Chua begins by analyzing the rise of America’s super power status. When America became independent, its’ new government was partly based on the principle of separation between church and state. Although the American government –in general– has been relatively tolerant concerning freedom of worship, it wasn’t always racially tolerant. Slavery and treatment of the Native Americans are examples. On the other hand, in spite of this, immigration to America was generally unrestricted and allowed America to grow into the diverse country that it is now.

Finally, will America be able to continue to be a hyperpower, and should it continue to be one? Chua discusses this at the end of the book, which is difficult to summarize here. But, basically, Chua feels that America is more likely to maintain its’ hyperpower status if it provides opportunity and good will towards others, rather than one of xenophobia and military force. Chua also encourages the American government to re-think its’ current immigration policy. While it cannot be unlimited and let just anyone come in, a relatively open immigration policy is a good way to create close ties between Americans and non-Americans. Even programs that bring young foreigners temporarily here (such as allowing them to study college here) can be helpful, because they then learn American values which they can then bring back to their homes.

I think this book was good reading– both for its’ historical context and for its’ look at some of the current situations today. This book does not attempt to oversimplify the causes of the rise and fall of powerful nations, but to show that tolerance is key to any government’s success.

I encourage you to read this book for an in-depth analysis, because there is more than what I’ve covered here. ( )

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

Almost everyone agrees by now that the United States currently wields an enormous amount of power and influence over the rest of the world; but does that give us the right to call the US an "empire," at least as how we traditionally define the word? After all, the US isn't trying to actively annex or colonize any foreign lands, has no interest in adding more states to the 50 we already own; we do have a vested interest, however, in seeing American-owned businesses do well in these foreign lands, a commonality among many empires throughout the ages, and we're not afraid to use military force to achieve those aims, yet another commonality. We spread the idea of free-election democracies and free-market capitalism, but then insist that the countries we deal with adopt such measures themselves, or suffer the wrath of an imposed democracy through the barrel of a gun.

Perhaps it's better, then, says bestselling essayist and futurist Amy Chua in her new book Day of Empire, to think of the United States instead as a "hyperpower" -- not necessarily an empire or republic or kingdom dealing with all their warring neighbors, but literally a society that has gained unquestioned dominance over the entire planet at once, or at least whatever part of the planet was known to those people at that point in history. If you define it this way, Chua says, then you can actually see a clear line of hyperpowers stretching back chronologically to Cyrus' Persian Empire of 500 BC, with other such infamous societies as the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, and even the Dutch Republic of the 1600s falling on this line as well; and what's more, you can actually see very obvious similarities between such groups when you align them in this fashion, lessons that can be applied to the US as well at this particular moment in history (the moment we're about to lose our hyperpower status, that is). And indeed, that's something else Chua convincingly does throughout the book as well, is show example after example of powerful empires that never did make it to hyperpower status -- the Ottoman Empires of history, the Spanish Inquisitions, the 20th-century fascist states -- and proves that none of them heeded the lessons about hyperpowers that she points out in this manuscript, thus reinforcing her theories about such societies' rises and falls even more.

So what exactly are the grand secrets about such hyperpowers that Chua discovers? Well, nothing too terribly surprising, if you really stop and think about; basically, that time after time after time, all hyperpowers in history saw their ascendency during a time when they embraced tolerance, when the society itself welcomed different religions and points of view and skill sets and culinary palettes, that the powerful combination of work power and brain power is what vaulted these societies into hyperpower status in the first place. And consequently, in example after example after example, where these hyperpowers started to fall is when they suddenly stopped being tolerant, when success and laziness and a drop in societal education turned the populace into xenophobic, superstitious zealots; time after time, Chua shows how such an attitude has driven away the very people and resources that made that society so powerful, usually right into the arms of another society on the rise that is happy to accept the resources. That's why this line of so-called hyperpowers seems sometimes to be an unbroken stretch from one society to the next for the last 2,500 years; because mainly it's a history of huge groups of people fleeing from one region of the world to the next, all the Jews with their money and scientists with their heretical ideas, and let's not even start with those dirty, dirty bohemians. Every time such groups are forced to flee one hyperpower because of rising intolerance, Chua convincingly argues here, these are always the moments those hyperpowers begin their downfalls; and whatever society ends up embracing these refugees tends to become the next hyperpower in history, which makes a lot of sense when it's explained that way.

And indeed, Chua's book is full of such "ah hah, yes, you're so right" moments, conclusions that make so much logical sense when you read them but that you had never really thought of yourself before this book; this manuscript is very much a reflection of the law professor Chua is during the day, moving very logically from one step to the next to the next. In fact, this might be the most interesting thing of all about Day of Empire, is that Chua does such a great job of pointing out the surprising amount of similarities from one hyperpower to the next; from Greek emperors bowing before Egyptian gods to Queen Victoria declaring herself the Empress of India, Chua creates an unshakable argument through facts and historical records of how important such religious tolerance and surface-level gestures have been to every single hyperpower in existence, no matter how those gestures are actually expressed from one decade to the next. In fact, as painful as it is, Chua also convincingly argues here how close such "evil" societies throughout history came to becoming long-term and secure ones, if they had only embraced such tolerance a little more themselves; to use one chilling example, how the Nazis would've probably gotten World War II called off as a stalemate, and survived well into our times, if they had only been able to embrace Russians, Poles and Czechs as equals and work out some kind of mutually beneficial truce. If not for the Holocaust, if not for their official policy of considering all their neighbors vermin, the Nazis could've very well "won" WWII precisely by not losing it; and this is the case with almost all the not-quite-hyperpowers in history, Chua argues, from the Spanish Empire embracing the Inquisition during the Dark Ages to China's Ming Empire embracing isolationism after the devastation of the Mongol Hoard.

It's an intriguing and thought-provoking book, one that will really have you looking at America's position in the world in a different way, wondering how we too might be able to "softly transition" out of hyperpower status like Great Britain did a century ago (a point in history Chua clearly admires), or if we are doomed to crash and burn like the old hyperpowers who never learned these lessons. Combined with the last section of this manuscript, a look at the rising regions and coming powers of the world (mostly the EU, China and India), it's a great primer as to how powerful societies get things right, where things go wrong, and what we can likely expect in global politics over the next 25 years. Day of Empire is a fast-moving, plainly-written book, one of those great nonfiction accounts geared towards a general populace that I love so much; not only policy wonks but simply those wanting to know a little more on the subject will find the book a real asset, and it gets a big recommendation from me today.

Out of 10: 9.3 ( )