Niall Ferguson

It's an incredibly impressive achievement to write a history about something as complex as imperialism so concisely, accessibly and punchily. Starting with the personal (the impact of the empire on Ferguson's family), it challenges contemporary myths, provides a coherent and believable account of the motive forces and behaviours of the British as imperialists and ends with a thought provoking and challenging section on the new American 'imperialism'. British people (or at least British show more liberals) have, over the last twenty or thirty years, simply felt a mix of guilt, embarrassment and incomprehension of our imperial past - this book provides a bracingly different perspective - not an apologist's one, but one that is more nuanced. show less

Добре де, защо някои държави са приятни за живеене, богати и устроени, а други са отвратителни бедни дупки?

Много хора се опитват да обясняват това с географско местоположение, природни ресурси, империализъм, даже масоните. Но за мен тия теории не обясняват достатъчно - show more защото от държавите с много ресурси има и бедни и богати, от държавите които са били империи има в момента и бедни и богати, от тия, които са били колонии има и бедни и богати... Едни са били силни, огромни империи в миналото, а в момента са други...

Найл Фъргюсън е британски историк и икономист, който има няколко доста добри книги - а в тази обяснява неговата идея за просперитета на държавите, чрез 6 идеи/практики, които много държави през човешката история са прилагали поотделно и са имали известен успех, но тези, които са прилагали повече от тях едновременно са имали по-голям. Те са:
- Конкуренция
- Наука
- Собственост и нейната защита
- Медицина
- Потребителска култура (консумеризъм)
- Трудова етика за упорита работа

Наличието/отсъствието на тези практики обяснява (според мен много добре) защо китайската империя, построила неизмеримо по-огромни кораби за околосветско плаване от тези на Колумб така и не завладява нищо и не се развива, а мънички Португалия, Холандия и Испания завладяват огромни световни империи... и после ги губят. Защо Япония, сразена във Втората световна война аграрна островна държава без никакви полезни изкопаеми се издига до световна икономическа сила за 30-40 години, а Русия с огромната си територия и население, с неизброими природни ресурси, се тътри на опашката на цивилизования свят...

Накратко, идеята на книгата, в лекция на автора:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnFeyMGUs8 show less

Big, provocative take on the British Empire. Written to argue, not to hedge. Entertaining even when annoying.
Ferguson argues that the British Empire, while violent and exploitative, produced more global good than harm. He claims it spread capitalism, free trade, liberal institutions, and a degree of global order. He insists Britain’s empire was better than rival imperial systems and that its collapse came from world wars, not moral failure.
What I found interesting
-Strong emphasis on show more informal empire and economic influence rather than constant territorial control.
- The comparison move. Britain vs everyone else. Lowers the bar, but it’s rhetorically effective.
- The argument that empire enabled globalization rather than simply extracting from colonies.
- The implied analogy between Britain then and the United States now.
What annoyed me
Moral costs are acknowledged but treated as side effects, not structural.
“Maintained peace” feels very empire-centered. Order for whom.
Liberal democracy appears as an endpoint rather than a contested outcome.

A sharp, readable defense of empire that is most revealing not in what it proves, but in how easily violence becomes a footnote once comparison enters the room. show less

War of the World served very well as an introduction to the first half of the last century, specifically from the standpoint of conflict and genocide. The prevalence, origin, and supporting conditions of ethnic cleansing were very plainly laid out, serving as a clear framework around which to build a Historical outlook.

The sections on the Russian Revolution and Stalinist Russia, and World War I were particularly enlightening. WWII was also covered in depth, but I found those topics a review show more of what public education and the History Channel drill into everyone -- with the exception of covering the Japanese involvement before and during, that was new.

What struck me as most interesting was that over six hundred pages of in depth History went by without a single area turning into a slog. Ferguson knew just how much time to spend on each piece before moving on.

The only slight I have is the premise, that genocidal conflict is tied to financial volatility, isn't strongly supported by the evidence presented. The specific regions affected by the conflict do not stand out as prominently volatile in comparison to other regions where ethnic cleansing did not break out. show less