What do you think?
Rate this book
Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire
From the bestselling author of The Ascent of Money and The Square and the Tower
Is America an empire? Certainly not, according to our government. Despite the conquest of two sovereign states in as many years, despite the presence of more than 750 military installations in two thirds of the world’s countries and despite his stated intention "to extend the benefits of freedom...to every corner of the world," George W. Bush maintains that "America has never been an empire." "We don’t seek empires," insists Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. "We’re not imperialistic." Nonsense, says Niall Ferguson. In Colossus he argues that in both military and economic terms America is nothing less than the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Just like the British Empire a century ago, the United States aspires to globalize free markets, the rule of law, and representative government. In theory it’s a good project, says Ferguson. Yet Americans shy away from the long-term commitments of manpower and money that are indispensable if rogue regimes and failed states really are to be changed for the better. Ours, he argues, is an empire with an attention deficit disorder, imposing ever more unrealistic timescales on its overseas interventions. Worse, it’s an empire in denial—a hyperpower that simply refuses to admit the scale of its global responsibilities. And the negative consequences will be felt at home as well as abroad. In an alarmingly persuasive final chapter Ferguson warns that this chronic myopia also applies to our domestic responsibilities. When overstretch comes, he warns, it will come from within—and it will reveal that more than just the feet of the American colossus is made of clay.
Is America an empire? Certainly not, according to our government. Despite the conquest of two sovereign states in as many years, despite the presence of more than 750 military installations in two thirds of the world’s countries and despite his stated intention "to extend the benefits of freedom...to every corner of the world," George W. Bush maintains that "America has never been an empire." "We don’t seek empires," insists Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. "We’re not imperialistic." Nonsense, says Niall Ferguson. In Colossus he argues that in both military and economic terms America is nothing less than the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Just like the British Empire a century ago, the United States aspires to globalize free markets, the rule of law, and representative government. In theory it’s a good project, says Ferguson. Yet Americans shy away from the long-term commitments of manpower and money that are indispensable if rogue regimes and failed states really are to be changed for the better. Ours, he argues, is an empire with an attention deficit disorder, imposing ever more unrealistic timescales on its overseas interventions. Worse, it’s an empire in denial—a hyperpower that simply refuses to admit the scale of its global responsibilities. And the negative consequences will be felt at home as well as abroad. In an alarmingly persuasive final chapter Ferguson warns that this chronic myopia also applies to our domestic responsibilities. When overstretch comes, he warns, it will come from within—and it will reveal that more than just the feet of the American colossus is made of clay.
416 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2004
About the author
Niall Ferguson
78 books2,998 followersNiall Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, former Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and current senior fellow at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University, a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and founder and managing director of advisory firm Greenmantle LLC.
The author of 15 books, Ferguson is writing a life of Henry Kissinger, the first volume of which--Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist--was published in 2015 to critical acclaim. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History. Other titles include Civilization: The West and the Rest, The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die and High Financier: The Lives and Time of Siegmund Warburg.
Ferguson's six-part PBS television series, "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World," based on his best-seller, won an International Emmy for best documentary in 2009. Civilization was also made into a documentary series. Ferguson is a recipient of the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Service as well as other honors. His most recent book is The Square and the Tower: Networks on Power from the Freemasons to Facebook (2018).
(Source: Amazon)
The author of 15 books, Ferguson is writing a life of Henry Kissinger, the first volume of which--Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist--was published in 2015 to critical acclaim. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History. Other titles include Civilization: The West and the Rest, The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die and High Financier: The Lives and Time of Siegmund Warburg.
Ferguson's six-part PBS television series, "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World," based on his best-seller, won an International Emmy for best documentary in 2009. Civilization was also made into a documentary series. Ferguson is a recipient of the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Service as well as other honors. His most recent book is The Square and the Tower: Networks on Power from the Freemasons to Facebook (2018).
(Source: Amazon)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews
July 21, 2009
Though my political tendencies are decidedly left-leaning, it was interesting to read Colossus, by Niall Ferguson, a staunch conservative. While the book had a tendency to spend more time on digression and example than the main thesis, Ferguson laid down the argument that the United States is an imperial nation and should uncomplainingly accept the purple mantle rather than shy away from her responsibility. From a man whose previous books include a eulogy to the British Empire, his love of imperialism should be surprising. While the basis for his argument is debatable – America should become militarily involved with the governments of other sovereign nations – the points that follow this assumption hold out under the test of logic. America was originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers to be a nascent empire. Just because the nation’s expansion was continental doesn’t mean that America’s past is rooted in expansionism and empire. Also, America’s successes in overseas nation-building have come when she has committed men and money for the long-term, a distinctly empirical attitude. Ferguson then concludes that if the United States is going to expend her military might for regime changes she had better be committed to years of nation building afterward.
I agree with these points. Our expansionist policy has echoed that of an empire. Denying history means we can’t learn from the lessons of the Central America and the Philippines. The military force we now have, arguably the best in the world, should be used for soft power and nation building; better that than shock and awe. However, Ferguson’s argument for continued Western dominance over other, especially African, countries smacks of the out-dated nineteenth century concept of the “white man’s burden.” Sub-Saharan Africa may be desperately in need of policy reform, but it’s nations were hardly doing any better under, for instance, the Belgians. Should a country specifically request American military intervention, such as in the case of Liberia, the United States should seriously consider going in to help. Otherwise aid and education should be the watchwords of the 21st century.
I agree with these points. Our expansionist policy has echoed that of an empire. Denying history means we can’t learn from the lessons of the Central America and the Philippines. The military force we now have, arguably the best in the world, should be used for soft power and nation building; better that than shock and awe. However, Ferguson’s argument for continued Western dominance over other, especially African, countries smacks of the out-dated nineteenth century concept of the “white man’s burden.” Sub-Saharan Africa may be desperately in need of policy reform, but it’s nations were hardly doing any better under, for instance, the Belgians. Should a country specifically request American military intervention, such as in the case of Liberia, the United States should seriously consider going in to help. Otherwise aid and education should be the watchwords of the 21st century.
May 16, 2022
Tărâmul tuturor posibilităților. Noua lume, locul unde orice se putea întâmpla, unde visele și dorințele puteau deveni realitate. Așa a fost percepută America, cel puțin în secolele 19 și 20, când a fost luată cu asalt de valurile de imigranți în speranța îmbogățirii. Sau măcar cu gândul la o viață nouă și prosperă. Înființate în 1776, după un război cu Marea Britanie, prin care voiau să-și dobândească independența, Statele Unite ale Americii au avut o ascensiune rapidă. Inițial o colonie a Albionului, având la început doar câteva state în componența lor, s-au dezvoltat cu abilitate și celeritate, devenind în scurt timp o putere recunoscută pe plan mondial. În scurtă vreme, la doar 100 de ani de la Declarația de Independență, America a devenit “Colosul” lumii.
Întrebarea predominantă care se pune în carte e dacă America a devenit un imperiu sau nu. Dar ce definește un imperiu? Mai ales în vremurile moderne, în era globalizării și a interdependenței dintre țări, dar și din perspectiva democrației pe care Statele Unite au adoptat-o ca politică reprezentativă. Pe de altă parte, care este diferența față de celelalte foste puteri? Și dacă este un imperiu, se poate raporta prin anumite acțiuni la alte foste mari imperii, printre care putem sa enumerăm Imperiul Roman, Imperiul Otoman, Imperiul Austro-Ungar sau cel Britanic – de care s-a desprins? Ce au în comun toate aceste imperii, cu excepția faptului că au fost cele mai puternice la vremea lor? E simplu, nu mai există. Au avut perioada lor de dezvoltare, un apogeu în care asimilaseră popoare și culturi întregi, în care controlau o bună parte din populația și suprafața planetei, după care a urmat inevitabilul declin și destrămarea. Iar cele de mai sus sunt doar câteva exemple, de-a lungul istoriei omenirii au existat mult mai multe, care au devenit… istorie.
Dacă argumentăm în favoarea definirii Americii ca forță imperială, una dintre diferențe este politica externă și felul în care își exercită puterea. Spre deosebire de fostele imperii, Statele Unite nu recurg mereu la puterea militară, au și opțiunea puterii necoercitive (soft power) prin tratate, alianțe și acorduri comerciale. E o opțiune care nu întotdeauna își atinge scopul, și care nu ar da rezultate în cazul unei implicări forțate și nesolicitate, însă posibil necesare, în politica unor țări cu regimuri dure și dictatoriale. Iar implicarea aceasta am văzut-o destul de des de-a lungul istoriei recente. În cazuri ca acestea se folosește puterea coercitivă (hard power), prin acțiuni militare, blocaje comerciale, suspendarea unor ajutoare sau chiar sancțiuni. Așa cum s-a întamplat în cazul unor state precum Nicaragua, Vietnam, Filipine, Puerto Rico, Republica Dominicana, Irak etc., state în care SUA s-au implicat activ. Astfel apar alte întrebări de natură etică, dar și juridică, mai ales că au o politică foarte ambiguă referitoare la regimurile agreate sau nu: pe ce criterii sunt alese aceste țări si ce anume le dă dreptul să se implice în politica lor internă? O fac pentru că au anumite interese acolo, și doar pentru că pot? Pentru ca nu intervine nimeni altcineva în stoparea unor regimuri opresive și criminale? Democrația impusă cu forța se mai poate numi democrație? Un lucru e sigur, unele dintre aceste state, fie că e vorba de sărăcie, războaie sau regimuri violente și tiranice îndreptate împotriva populației, au nevoie de ajutor extern.
Există o teorie larg răspândită care afirmă că SUA ar fi interesate de petrolul din Orientul Mijlociu, și că acesta ar fi fost, în principal, motivul invaziei Afganistanului și implicării în politica Irakului. Niall Ferguson o demontează, susținând că rezervele proprii sunt suficiente, și că ar fi renuntat la “controlul asupra rezervelor de petrol arabe”. Să acționeze atunci acolo doar cu scopul de reducere a terorismului, și pentru păstrarea păcii globale? Să fie cu adevarat “jandarmul lumii”? ? Sau e doar un eufemism prin care sugerează că ei dictează ora exactă? Oricum, cert e că nu s-au limitat la a acționa în America Latina, Asia sau Orientul Mijlociu. Au intervenit și în Europa (vezi cazul Kosovo și războiul etnic din Serbia și Iugoslavia). O altă deosebire de fostele imperii este dezinteresul pentru colonizare, SUA nu și-au dorit niciodată să zăbovească prea mult în țările în care intervin, poate cu excepția Irakului; de obicei îi ajută economic și financiar, oferă suport pentru reconstrucția națională și refacerea infrastructurii în cazul unui război, eliminând vechile practici de cucerire, colonizare și guvernare, și apoi se retrag. Deci, este America un imperiu? Dacă da, este un imperiu necesar azi, unul de care să fie cu adevarat nevoie, care să poată menține un echilibru de forțe in lume? Ferguson înclină să creadă că da, cu toate că este un imperiu care are nevoie de aliați și care este debitor către alte state, în totală opoziție cu definiția clasică a termenului. Este un colos cu picioare de lut ori Atlasul pe umerii căruia se sprijină lumea?
Cartea lui Niall Ferguson este o analiză interesantă a felului în care stau lucrurile la nivel global, mai ales că acesta susține că nu este numai o carte de istorie, ci și o “lucrare de economie politică contemporană”. Personal, ca pasionat de acest domeniu, mi-ar fi plăcut să fie mai multă istorie decât tabele cu statistici, grafice si indicatori economici, elemente care au îngreunat lectura și i-au cam răpit din fluență și cursivitate. A nu se înțelege greșit, este și istorie, dar prea puțină și axată în general pe a doua jumătate a secolului 20 și începutul secolului 21, însă doar până în 2004, când a fost publicată. Ediția de la Polirom a apărut abia în 2019 și cred că e nevoie de un update, poate de un al doilea volum care să trateze ultimele evenimente internaționale, dar și cele petrecute între granițele Americii după administrația Bush Jr. Iar de evenimente și subiecte nu ducem lipsă, de la alegerea lui Barack Obama, primul președinte de culoare, care a avut și două mandate, până la controversatul Donald Trump, care voia să ducă modernul imperiu al Statelor Unite la izolaționismul de altădată.
Întrebarea predominantă care se pune în carte e dacă America a devenit un imperiu sau nu. Dar ce definește un imperiu? Mai ales în vremurile moderne, în era globalizării și a interdependenței dintre țări, dar și din perspectiva democrației pe care Statele Unite au adoptat-o ca politică reprezentativă. Pe de altă parte, care este diferența față de celelalte foste puteri? Și dacă este un imperiu, se poate raporta prin anumite acțiuni la alte foste mari imperii, printre care putem sa enumerăm Imperiul Roman, Imperiul Otoman, Imperiul Austro-Ungar sau cel Britanic – de care s-a desprins? Ce au în comun toate aceste imperii, cu excepția faptului că au fost cele mai puternice la vremea lor? E simplu, nu mai există. Au avut perioada lor de dezvoltare, un apogeu în care asimilaseră popoare și culturi întregi, în care controlau o bună parte din populația și suprafața planetei, după care a urmat inevitabilul declin și destrămarea. Iar cele de mai sus sunt doar câteva exemple, de-a lungul istoriei omenirii au existat mult mai multe, care au devenit… istorie.
Dacă argumentăm în favoarea definirii Americii ca forță imperială, una dintre diferențe este politica externă și felul în care își exercită puterea. Spre deosebire de fostele imperii, Statele Unite nu recurg mereu la puterea militară, au și opțiunea puterii necoercitive (soft power) prin tratate, alianțe și acorduri comerciale. E o opțiune care nu întotdeauna își atinge scopul, și care nu ar da rezultate în cazul unei implicări forțate și nesolicitate, însă posibil necesare, în politica unor țări cu regimuri dure și dictatoriale. Iar implicarea aceasta am văzut-o destul de des de-a lungul istoriei recente. În cazuri ca acestea se folosește puterea coercitivă (hard power), prin acțiuni militare, blocaje comerciale, suspendarea unor ajutoare sau chiar sancțiuni. Așa cum s-a întamplat în cazul unor state precum Nicaragua, Vietnam, Filipine, Puerto Rico, Republica Dominicana, Irak etc., state în care SUA s-au implicat activ. Astfel apar alte întrebări de natură etică, dar și juridică, mai ales că au o politică foarte ambiguă referitoare la regimurile agreate sau nu: pe ce criterii sunt alese aceste țări si ce anume le dă dreptul să se implice în politica lor internă? O fac pentru că au anumite interese acolo, și doar pentru că pot? Pentru ca nu intervine nimeni altcineva în stoparea unor regimuri opresive și criminale? Democrația impusă cu forța se mai poate numi democrație? Un lucru e sigur, unele dintre aceste state, fie că e vorba de sărăcie, războaie sau regimuri violente și tiranice îndreptate împotriva populației, au nevoie de ajutor extern.
Există o teorie larg răspândită care afirmă că SUA ar fi interesate de petrolul din Orientul Mijlociu, și că acesta ar fi fost, în principal, motivul invaziei Afganistanului și implicării în politica Irakului. Niall Ferguson o demontează, susținând că rezervele proprii sunt suficiente, și că ar fi renuntat la “controlul asupra rezervelor de petrol arabe”. Să acționeze atunci acolo doar cu scopul de reducere a terorismului, și pentru păstrarea păcii globale? Să fie cu adevarat “jandarmul lumii”? ? Sau e doar un eufemism prin care sugerează că ei dictează ora exactă? Oricum, cert e că nu s-au limitat la a acționa în America Latina, Asia sau Orientul Mijlociu. Au intervenit și în Europa (vezi cazul Kosovo și războiul etnic din Serbia și Iugoslavia). O altă deosebire de fostele imperii este dezinteresul pentru colonizare, SUA nu și-au dorit niciodată să zăbovească prea mult în țările în care intervin, poate cu excepția Irakului; de obicei îi ajută economic și financiar, oferă suport pentru reconstrucția națională și refacerea infrastructurii în cazul unui război, eliminând vechile practici de cucerire, colonizare și guvernare, și apoi se retrag. Deci, este America un imperiu? Dacă da, este un imperiu necesar azi, unul de care să fie cu adevarat nevoie, care să poată menține un echilibru de forțe in lume? Ferguson înclină să creadă că da, cu toate că este un imperiu care are nevoie de aliați și care este debitor către alte state, în totală opoziție cu definiția clasică a termenului. Este un colos cu picioare de lut ori Atlasul pe umerii căruia se sprijină lumea?
Cartea lui Niall Ferguson este o analiză interesantă a felului în care stau lucrurile la nivel global, mai ales că acesta susține că nu este numai o carte de istorie, ci și o “lucrare de economie politică contemporană”. Personal, ca pasionat de acest domeniu, mi-ar fi plăcut să fie mai multă istorie decât tabele cu statistici, grafice si indicatori economici, elemente care au îngreunat lectura și i-au cam răpit din fluență și cursivitate. A nu se înțelege greșit, este și istorie, dar prea puțină și axată în general pe a doua jumătate a secolului 20 și începutul secolului 21, însă doar până în 2004, când a fost publicată. Ediția de la Polirom a apărut abia în 2019 și cred că e nevoie de un update, poate de un al doilea volum care să trateze ultimele evenimente internaționale, dar și cele petrecute între granițele Americii după administrația Bush Jr. Iar de evenimente și subiecte nu ducem lipsă, de la alegerea lui Barack Obama, primul președinte de culoare, care a avut și două mandate, până la controversatul Donald Trump, care voia să ducă modernul imperiu al Statelor Unite la izolaționismul de altădată.
March 25, 2010
5.0 stars. This was an insightful and incredibly enjoyable read. Despite being exhaustively researched, the writing was clear, consise and, unexpectedly, entertaining. Ferguson puts forth a compelling case for the benefits of the U.S. embracing the role of a "liberal" empire while at the same time identifying the internal and external conditions that will likely prevent the U.S. from accepting the role. Highly recommended!!
July 30, 2013
everybody knows, so to speak, that the Brits have an edge in literature and non-fiction writing, but is it possible to quantify this edge? and does the UK, a nation of 63 million, really produce more and better material than the US, population 310 million and economy correspondingly 6x the size? I was thinking of scribbling out this screed on a Simon Winchester entry, but intellectual tasks happen when they do. we can't go around planning everything of course.
I guess in goodreads terms there is a way of comparing the two entities. we can start with military writing
UK: Max Hastings, Antony Beevor, David Stevenson
US: John Toland, Rick Atkinson
advantage: UK
current/contemporary affairs; society and economics
UK: Niall Ferguson, Simon Winchester
US: Nicholas Taleb, Thomas Friedman
advantage: UK
sport/mountaineering/fishing
UK: [that US guy who moved to the UK]
US: Jon Krakauer, Sebastian Junger
advantage: US
china/japan/india
UK: Pico Iyer, (Simon Winchester)
US: Jake Adelstein, Greenfeld et al.
advantage: US (Winchester already listed)
science/medicine/evolution
UK: Steven Pinker
US: Jared Diamond
advantage: dead heat
so 2.5 to 2.5, the UK and US are exactly neck-and-neck in terms of output of brilliant non-fiction writers, BUT, of course, the UK is a much smaller country. so this leads to the next question: why?
theory number one: island nation theory
according to this theory, if you live on a small island nation, you spend all your time looking at other people rather than looking at the outside world. hence, you develop a much more sophisticated understanding of human nature, and in fact, you might begin to conclude that human beings are evil whereas broad continental pioneer societies like to meet new personalities (who might be of advantage during an ice blizzard or something)
theory number two: racial superiority theory
the British consist of proper German stock (Angles, Sachsens) who were then conquered by, of all people, the French, and then had their bloodline horribly corrupted by French genes, with the result that the British have this nagging sense that their cuisine, fashion, and sculpture are all, somehow, flawed... this leads to a sense of alienation and creates superior writers.
theory number three: imperial history theory
Brits still control territory upon which the sun never sets but other than this they have no designs on north american territory whereas the US is still engulfed with a nagging sense of desire to one day displace London's territorial control over its home islands. based on these different political ambitions, the British are spending more time writing books while the Americans are busy making money.
so there, I've outwritten Niall Ferguson. you don't even need to read his book. 4/5. not quite as good as Imperial, because he doesn't really get the US whereas in Imperial he's constantly making brilliant asides. now I'm going to go listen to Joy Division, the Cure, Morrissey, the Stone Roses, and some late Beatles. I am a punk rocker
I guess in goodreads terms there is a way of comparing the two entities. we can start with military writing
UK: Max Hastings, Antony Beevor, David Stevenson
US: John Toland, Rick Atkinson
advantage: UK
current/contemporary affairs; society and economics
UK: Niall Ferguson, Simon Winchester
US: Nicholas Taleb, Thomas Friedman
advantage: UK
sport/mountaineering/fishing
UK: [that US guy who moved to the UK]
US: Jon Krakauer, Sebastian Junger
advantage: US
china/japan/india
UK: Pico Iyer, (Simon Winchester)
US: Jake Adelstein, Greenfeld et al.
advantage: US (Winchester already listed)
science/medicine/evolution
UK: Steven Pinker
US: Jared Diamond
advantage: dead heat
so 2.5 to 2.5, the UK and US are exactly neck-and-neck in terms of output of brilliant non-fiction writers, BUT, of course, the UK is a much smaller country. so this leads to the next question: why?
theory number one: island nation theory
according to this theory, if you live on a small island nation, you spend all your time looking at other people rather than looking at the outside world. hence, you develop a much more sophisticated understanding of human nature, and in fact, you might begin to conclude that human beings are evil whereas broad continental pioneer societies like to meet new personalities (who might be of advantage during an ice blizzard or something)
theory number two: racial superiority theory
the British consist of proper German stock (Angles, Sachsens) who were then conquered by, of all people, the French, and then had their bloodline horribly corrupted by French genes, with the result that the British have this nagging sense that their cuisine, fashion, and sculpture are all, somehow, flawed... this leads to a sense of alienation and creates superior writers.
theory number three: imperial history theory
Brits still control territory upon which the sun never sets but other than this they have no designs on north american territory whereas the US is still engulfed with a nagging sense of desire to one day displace London's territorial control over its home islands. based on these different political ambitions, the British are spending more time writing books while the Americans are busy making money.
so there, I've outwritten Niall Ferguson. you don't even need to read his book. 4/5. not quite as good as Imperial, because he doesn't really get the US whereas in Imperial he's constantly making brilliant asides. now I'm going to go listen to Joy Division, the Cure, Morrissey, the Stone Roses, and some late Beatles. I am a punk rocker
January 4, 2021
In favour of the American Empire
19 October 2009
I find Professor Ferguson to be an incredibly insightful historian and a very concise writer, and I must say that I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read. However, I did find that this book did start to become a bit dry and depressing near the end, but it is still a very good book and well worth the read. Without going into extensive arguments and discussions about what America should do with her unprecedented power, and also the concept of the rule of law (which he does not explore in this book, but I will make mention of it) I shall look at what I found insightful, the aspects of the argument that I do agree with, and then the aspects of the argument that I disagree with, and in a way believe that he has overlooked (not that it really changes his conclusion all that much).
The United States is unique among empires in many ways. The main difference is that it is an empire that seems to be repulsed by expansionism. In the early 19th century it expanded to take direct control of a large strip of land on the North American continent, and then all of the sudden it stopped. Since that time, the US only acquired Alaska, a collection of islands in the Pacific and the island of Puerto Rico. Every other country that they have occupied they have eventually left (though it is too early to see with Afghanistan and Iraq). In fact, the American people seem repulsed by war. The anti-war protests in the lead up to Iraq, and the subsequent protests since are nothing new. In fact anti-war protests, and critics, date back to the Mexican American war, though even despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming victory against the Mexicans, they pretty much withdrew after they obtained the southwestern states. Secondly, unique amongst empires, America did not expand simply by conquest, but rather by purchasing land through the issuance of bonds. The Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen purchase, Alaska, and even the Southwestern states were not so much the spoils of war, but rather a fire sale forced upon the Mexican government.
As for the aspects of his arguments that I agree with: the main one is that if the United States were to collapse as a world power, would that make the world any better - highly unlikely. First, when we look at the ashes of World War II there were four contenders to become the world superpower - Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States (Britain was in its final death throws). Out of those four contenders, we are pretty comfortable in picking the one we would all like. As for now, Ferguson's argument is that there is no viable contender - Europe is straining under an aging population, and China is a bubble that is waiting to burst. A withdrawal of American power is likely to leave an apolar world, or a world without a significant influence, which is likely to leave us in a worse position than we are currently in (though he does not consider the rise of corporate power over the last half-century).
His case for liberal empire is very compelling, and in stating his case, he looks at Britain. While Britain is guilty of many atrocities, she also invested heavily in her empire in that a number of her former colonies are now quite prosperous (see Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong) and even India and South Africa, despite a widening wealth gap, are still better today than before they arrived. America, he argues, could to a lot, but it doesn't. It isn't the case that American as a power is not a nation builder, all we have to look at is Germany, Japan, and South Korea to see their successes with nation-building. However, the American attitude of non-interference, and that when they do interfere, they simply want to topple the government and go home, is not conducive to the creation of a functioning nation-state. Even trying to invade on the cheap just does not work. Ferguson points out that there is an abundance of labour available in prisons and on the streets to fill the army (the British did that), but they are loathed to instate conscription, even if it only applies to those who have forfeited their rights due to the commission of a crime.
As for my disagreements, they are twofold. In his discussion on an apolar world, he does not take into account the rise of corporate power. There are mega corporations today that function like countries, and have the capital of a developed country. However, unlike a country, companies cannot easily default on debt. Still, in an apolar world, corporate power is going to be much more noticeable, and much more oppressive than it is currently. It will not be a world of nation-states, but a branded marketplace of ever-increasing competition and back room deals. Unlike a democracy, where there is one vote for all, in a corporate world it is one vote per share, so the biggest shareholders hold the greatest power.
Secondly, I simply do not accept his view on the Iraq War. While I agree that Sadam could not be trusted, and was a dangerous man, the government still lied. Further, the question of weapons of mass destruction is a moot point. North Korea and Iran are much closer to developing nuclear bombs, and other states, if they cannot make them they can still purchase them, pretty much puts Sadam alongside all of the other tinpot dictators out there. So, why Iraq. That is a one-world answer - oil. Two words - cheap oil. I'm sorry professor Ferguson, it's not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. The US needs cheap oil, and bucketloads of it (okay, I know, oil is measured in barrels, but that is beside the point). With Iraq having the world's second-largest reserves that the government is refusing to sell to them at prices they like, then with a bunch of hawks in government means that it is going to be too tempting a target to ignore.
19 October 2009
I find Professor Ferguson to be an incredibly insightful historian and a very concise writer, and I must say that I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read. However, I did find that this book did start to become a bit dry and depressing near the end, but it is still a very good book and well worth the read. Without going into extensive arguments and discussions about what America should do with her unprecedented power, and also the concept of the rule of law (which he does not explore in this book, but I will make mention of it) I shall look at what I found insightful, the aspects of the argument that I do agree with, and then the aspects of the argument that I disagree with, and in a way believe that he has overlooked (not that it really changes his conclusion all that much).
The United States is unique among empires in many ways. The main difference is that it is an empire that seems to be repulsed by expansionism. In the early 19th century it expanded to take direct control of a large strip of land on the North American continent, and then all of the sudden it stopped. Since that time, the US only acquired Alaska, a collection of islands in the Pacific and the island of Puerto Rico. Every other country that they have occupied they have eventually left (though it is too early to see with Afghanistan and Iraq). In fact, the American people seem repulsed by war. The anti-war protests in the lead up to Iraq, and the subsequent protests since are nothing new. In fact anti-war protests, and critics, date back to the Mexican American war, though even despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming victory against the Mexicans, they pretty much withdrew after they obtained the southwestern states. Secondly, unique amongst empires, America did not expand simply by conquest, but rather by purchasing land through the issuance of bonds. The Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen purchase, Alaska, and even the Southwestern states were not so much the spoils of war, but rather a fire sale forced upon the Mexican government.
As for the aspects of his arguments that I agree with: the main one is that if the United States were to collapse as a world power, would that make the world any better - highly unlikely. First, when we look at the ashes of World War II there were four contenders to become the world superpower - Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States (Britain was in its final death throws). Out of those four contenders, we are pretty comfortable in picking the one we would all like. As for now, Ferguson's argument is that there is no viable contender - Europe is straining under an aging population, and China is a bubble that is waiting to burst. A withdrawal of American power is likely to leave an apolar world, or a world without a significant influence, which is likely to leave us in a worse position than we are currently in (though he does not consider the rise of corporate power over the last half-century).
His case for liberal empire is very compelling, and in stating his case, he looks at Britain. While Britain is guilty of many atrocities, she also invested heavily in her empire in that a number of her former colonies are now quite prosperous (see Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong) and even India and South Africa, despite a widening wealth gap, are still better today than before they arrived. America, he argues, could to a lot, but it doesn't. It isn't the case that American as a power is not a nation builder, all we have to look at is Germany, Japan, and South Korea to see their successes with nation-building. However, the American attitude of non-interference, and that when they do interfere, they simply want to topple the government and go home, is not conducive to the creation of a functioning nation-state. Even trying to invade on the cheap just does not work. Ferguson points out that there is an abundance of labour available in prisons and on the streets to fill the army (the British did that), but they are loathed to instate conscription, even if it only applies to those who have forfeited their rights due to the commission of a crime.
As for my disagreements, they are twofold. In his discussion on an apolar world, he does not take into account the rise of corporate power. There are mega corporations today that function like countries, and have the capital of a developed country. However, unlike a country, companies cannot easily default on debt. Still, in an apolar world, corporate power is going to be much more noticeable, and much more oppressive than it is currently. It will not be a world of nation-states, but a branded marketplace of ever-increasing competition and back room deals. Unlike a democracy, where there is one vote for all, in a corporate world it is one vote per share, so the biggest shareholders hold the greatest power.
Secondly, I simply do not accept his view on the Iraq War. While I agree that Sadam could not be trusted, and was a dangerous man, the government still lied. Further, the question of weapons of mass destruction is a moot point. North Korea and Iran are much closer to developing nuclear bombs, and other states, if they cannot make them they can still purchase them, pretty much puts Sadam alongside all of the other tinpot dictators out there. So, why Iraq. That is a one-world answer - oil. Two words - cheap oil. I'm sorry professor Ferguson, it's not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. The US needs cheap oil, and bucketloads of it (okay, I know, oil is measured in barrels, but that is beside the point). With Iraq having the world's second-largest reserves that the government is refusing to sell to them at prices they like, then with a bunch of hawks in government means that it is going to be too tempting a target to ignore.
June 8, 2008
Interesting read, but a clear indicator that Ferguson's foreign policy worldview is best confined to paper.
June 20, 2007
This book made me nostalgic of the good ol' days of Western imperialism. Ah, nothing like waking up to the markets of the former Ottoman Empire, sampling the Asian teas from the top of a pagoded camel, smiling at your Mohammedean fez-headed domestic servant condescendingly... ahh...
Apparently, Imperialism can be a good thing. Countries of old British colonialism were given decent infrastructures (in exchange for total subserviance), not to mention America's two big post-occupied nations of Japan and Germany... Ferguson, after going through an exciting history of America's imperial escapades up to World War II, gives the reader a good sense of post World War II America as the almost-Empire--always nervous to utter the "E"-word, always one foot in and one foot out of the pool. "We're going to leave any time now" seems to be the American mantra Day 1 of any occupation.
Ferguson was actually able to sway my personal stance on the Iraq war, though it would not be a popular opinion among most Post-Mid-Term Election Americans. Unfortunately, the last third of the book lags as Ferguson begins to show the economic side of imperialism, and me, not one for the numbers, was admittingly a bit lost.
Still, a good book to learn about Free Trade, Liberal Empires, and somber realities.
Apparently, Imperialism can be a good thing. Countries of old British colonialism were given decent infrastructures (in exchange for total subserviance), not to mention America's two big post-occupied nations of Japan and Germany... Ferguson, after going through an exciting history of America's imperial escapades up to World War II, gives the reader a good sense of post World War II America as the almost-Empire--always nervous to utter the "E"-word, always one foot in and one foot out of the pool. "We're going to leave any time now" seems to be the American mantra Day 1 of any occupation.
Ferguson was actually able to sway my personal stance on the Iraq war, though it would not be a popular opinion among most Post-Mid-Term Election Americans. Unfortunately, the last third of the book lags as Ferguson begins to show the economic side of imperialism, and me, not one for the numbers, was admittingly a bit lost.
Still, a good book to learn about Free Trade, Liberal Empires, and somber realities.
April 23, 2010
Niall Ferguson is a confused man. In his introduction he begins by making the assertion that the U.S has an imperialist mindset and argues that this could actually be a good thing.
He paints a picture of an empire hungry America, with an appetite for 'untrammeled command over it's military ventures' looking for ways to circumvent the U.N, is inhibited by a 'no casualties mindset' while at the same time remaining indifferent to collateral damage that inevitably resulted from high-altitude bombing.' He blames the U.S for not getting involved earlier in Bosnia, accuses both the U.S and U.N of greeting the 'systematic massacre of Rwanda's Tutsi minority....with a lamentable apathy.' and again accuses Clintons administration of having an attitude 'determined, as usual, by the fear of casualties' and a 'shameful negligience in the face of a genocide'. He then goes on to blame France for the massacres.
His knowlege on Osama Bin Laden is sparse and pernicious at times. He claims Bin Laden left Saudi in 91, was only in Afghanistan in 96 which are both very far from the truth.
He then accuses France, China and Russia of 'subtly encouraging Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspection' - a grave charge indeed - but fails to elaborate on this point.
In the midst of all his flowery words and contradictory views, Nial Fergusson directly implies that the Europeans are obstructionists and complicit in genocide (Bosnia) and the Americans -Imperialist cowards.
He is very anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-European, anti-Nato, anti-UN, you name it, he's against it. What he is for though is colonialism.
In the second section of the book he makes the argument that for ' some countries... a partial or complete suspension of their national sovereignty, might be better than full independence, not just for a few months or years but for decades', calls independence a failure and manages to actually put the blame of unfair trade on African countries' protectionist tendencies. I fail to understand his argument, the notion that African countries can be blamed for protectionism is absolutely ridiculous.
That is the point at which I slammed the book shut. You can't trust anything that comes out of Nial Ferguson's head. He is an educated fool. And a very confused one at that.
He paints a picture of an empire hungry America, with an appetite for 'untrammeled command over it's military ventures' looking for ways to circumvent the U.N, is inhibited by a 'no casualties mindset' while at the same time remaining indifferent to collateral damage that inevitably resulted from high-altitude bombing.' He blames the U.S for not getting involved earlier in Bosnia, accuses both the U.S and U.N of greeting the 'systematic massacre of Rwanda's Tutsi minority....with a lamentable apathy.' and again accuses Clintons administration of having an attitude 'determined, as usual, by the fear of casualties' and a 'shameful negligience in the face of a genocide'. He then goes on to blame France for the massacres.
His knowlege on Osama Bin Laden is sparse and pernicious at times. He claims Bin Laden left Saudi in 91, was only in Afghanistan in 96 which are both very far from the truth.
He then accuses France, China and Russia of 'subtly encouraging Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspection' - a grave charge indeed - but fails to elaborate on this point.
In the midst of all his flowery words and contradictory views, Nial Fergusson directly implies that the Europeans are obstructionists and complicit in genocide (Bosnia) and the Americans -Imperialist cowards.
He is very anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-European, anti-Nato, anti-UN, you name it, he's against it. What he is for though is colonialism.
In the second section of the book he makes the argument that for ' some countries... a partial or complete suspension of their national sovereignty, might be better than full independence, not just for a few months or years but for decades', calls independence a failure and manages to actually put the blame of unfair trade on African countries' protectionist tendencies. I fail to understand his argument, the notion that African countries can be blamed for protectionism is absolutely ridiculous.
That is the point at which I slammed the book shut. You can't trust anything that comes out of Nial Ferguson's head. He is an educated fool. And a very confused one at that.
January 10, 2010
This is my 3rd book among to the 50 that are classified as HISTORY books in 501 MUST READ BOOKS by Bounty Books (2006; UK). Like the previous two: HIROSHIMA by John Hersey (1946) and CHE GUEVARA: A REVOLUTIONARY LIFE by John Lee Anderson (1997), I enjoyed this a lot too. In the 501 INTRODUCTION, the publisher explained that these 50 history books are so different in terms of style and context and yet, if you were to read every title recommended here you would have a phenomenal understanding of, and perspective on the known history of the world and our 21st century in it continuum (pp 7).
However, more than the first two books, this one is full of new knowledge for me that I spent 4 days to finish a 300-page book. I have not been closely following world's news especially when I was younger specially what happened in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. This book, COLOSSUS: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, summarized the American interventions in those wars they participated in as world's police. This includes the Israel-Egypt war that happened when I was busy studying my college degree in the early 80's and the Iraq-Iran and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait when I was busy starting my career at the later part of that decade. Now, I understand what PLO was, the background of why the US befriended Israel, why Bush was decisive in freeing Kuwait, etc. These things I might not be able to learn if I limit my reading choices with novels however good and entertaining they may be.
Speaking of fictions, Ferguson made use quite heavily of references to Mark Bowen's BLACK HAWK DOWN and Graham Greene's THE QUIET AMERICAN. Proof that though fictions or semi-fiction (in the case of Black Hawk) can also be informative but of course not as effective as when you read a history book.
Written in June 2003 and published in the 2005, it is very interesting that Ferguson was able to give a hint of the eventual "fall" of the US that is actually what is happening now, i.e., the global recession. The beauty of reading a history book is in the expanding of one's knowledge and even watching CNN yesterday morning gave me a deeper appreciation of what is going on in the US. The CNN announcer was saying that the US cut 85,000 jobs last month (December) and the worst is still to come before it bottoms out.
Relating that to the book, on Ferguson's conclusion of the book, the US as a empire (though in denial) has become the world's biggest borrow when the ideal should have been that an empire should be a creditor. Ferguson also explained that there should be an event (which on the hindsight should be the global recession) that would weaken the US position as an empire. Then this will finally result to a situation he calls as "apolarity" wherein there will be no empire at all and the world's police role will be co-shared by many countries.
There are many other interesting theories and well-presented analysis Ferguson included in this book and enjoyed them tremendously. It is like taking a crash course on World's History on empires from several centuries ago to the current ones. There are even references to the American occupation of the Philippines so it made my reading truly worthwhile.
Good job, Mr. Niall Ferguson!
However, more than the first two books, this one is full of new knowledge for me that I spent 4 days to finish a 300-page book. I have not been closely following world's news especially when I was younger specially what happened in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. This book, COLOSSUS: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, summarized the American interventions in those wars they participated in as world's police. This includes the Israel-Egypt war that happened when I was busy studying my college degree in the early 80's and the Iraq-Iran and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait when I was busy starting my career at the later part of that decade. Now, I understand what PLO was, the background of why the US befriended Israel, why Bush was decisive in freeing Kuwait, etc. These things I might not be able to learn if I limit my reading choices with novels however good and entertaining they may be.
Speaking of fictions, Ferguson made use quite heavily of references to Mark Bowen's BLACK HAWK DOWN and Graham Greene's THE QUIET AMERICAN. Proof that though fictions or semi-fiction (in the case of Black Hawk) can also be informative but of course not as effective as when you read a history book.
Written in June 2003 and published in the 2005, it is very interesting that Ferguson was able to give a hint of the eventual "fall" of the US that is actually what is happening now, i.e., the global recession. The beauty of reading a history book is in the expanding of one's knowledge and even watching CNN yesterday morning gave me a deeper appreciation of what is going on in the US. The CNN announcer was saying that the US cut 85,000 jobs last month (December) and the worst is still to come before it bottoms out.
Relating that to the book, on Ferguson's conclusion of the book, the US as a empire (though in denial) has become the world's biggest borrow when the ideal should have been that an empire should be a creditor. Ferguson also explained that there should be an event (which on the hindsight should be the global recession) that would weaken the US position as an empire. Then this will finally result to a situation he calls as "apolarity" wherein there will be no empire at all and the world's police role will be co-shared by many countries.
There are many other interesting theories and well-presented analysis Ferguson included in this book and enjoyed them tremendously. It is like taking a crash course on World's History on empires from several centuries ago to the current ones. There are even references to the American occupation of the Philippines so it made my reading truly worthwhile.
Good job, Mr. Niall Ferguson!
August 15, 2021
這本書的「目的」，可以用一句話來總結：
「亞美利堅帝國，即使妳曾有一堆不堪的黑歷史，但沒關係，為了全世界的自由與民主，放手幹下去！我挺妳。」
整體說來，本書內文厚達四百多頁，只有前面一半講美國建國以來的歷史介紹，我覺得比較有收獲。後半幾乎都只剩下對國際時事（2003為止）的評論，而且主旨都是「啊美國人就算搞事搞出問題，啊但如果美國人沒來搞一定會更糟糕的啦」這種先射箭後畫靶的論述。
由於這位弗格森聽說很有名，於是好奇地從書架摘了這本厚書來看。我搞不太懂這位老兄到底算不算是歷史學者；就算人家說他是，也不是我欣賞的那類史學研究員。因為，假如學者成天拿歷史事蹟來「實用化」、褒此貶彼、意識形態傳教，而非從中獲得學問的樂趣、從中昇華出人類物種的運作定律。那這種學者，只算是當權者的理論化妝師罷了。
可能由於本書作者出身英國，所以他對「帝國」一詞相當自在，因而驚訝於美國人在深層認知上竟如此抗拒沾染「亞美利堅帝國」，幾乎成了意識形態的反射。因此本書的後半（其實前半講歷史時也夾帶不少了），主要是要「教育」讀者，帝國沒什麼不好、干預外國是對的、膽小靖綏的聯合國算個屁、只要自認正義便別管他人獨自出兵幹死外國壞壞領導者便是了。
奇妙的書，尤其寫於2003年本書關於阿富汗伊拉克戰爭，作者對美軍行動所洋溢的熱情，在今天（2021）讀來有多麼怪……
#這種書的保鮮期可能只有五年吧
「亞美利堅帝國，即使妳曾有一堆不堪的黑歷史，但沒關係，為了全世界的自由與民主，放手幹下去！我挺妳。」
整體說來，本書內文厚達四百多頁，只有前面一半講美國建國以來的歷史介紹，我覺得比較有收獲。後半幾乎都只剩下對國際時事（2003為止）的評論，而且主旨都是「啊美國人就算搞事搞出問題，啊但如果美國人沒來搞一定會更糟糕的啦」這種先射箭後畫靶的論述。
由於這位弗格森聽說很有名，於是好奇地從書架摘了這本厚書來看。我搞不太懂這位老兄到底算不算是歷史學者；就算人家說他是，也不是我欣賞的那類史學研究員。因為，假如學者成天拿歷史事蹟來「實用化」、褒此貶彼、意識形態傳教，而非從中獲得學問的樂趣、從中昇華出人類物種的運作定律。那這種學者，只算是當權者的理論化妝師罷了。
可能由於本書作者出身英國，所以他對「帝國」一詞相當自在，因而驚訝於美國人在深層認知上竟如此抗拒沾染「亞美利堅帝國」，幾乎成了意識形態的反射。因此本書的後半（其實前半講歷史時也夾帶不少了），主要是要「教育」讀者，帝國沒什麼不好、干預外國是對的、膽小靖綏的聯合國算個屁、只要自認正義便別管他人獨自出兵幹死外國壞壞領導者便是了。
奇妙的書，尤其寫於2003年本書關於阿富汗伊拉克戰爭，作者對美軍行動所洋溢的熱情，在今天（2021）讀來有多麼怪……
#這種書的保鮮期可能只有五年吧
February 10, 2012
What a book! What a joy to read. Hefty stuff on the way the US should choose to be an empire and behave consiously as such. Ferguson takes the British Empire as an example how to rule (part of) the world and takes the point of view that an empire isn't a bad thing by definition. When you compare several African states in the 19th century within the Empire with the ghastly condition they are in now as independant states, he makes a choice for stability, food, work and a healthy economy instead of independance and (sometimes) pseudo democracy.
The book is perhaps more a pamphlet than an historical treatise, the message is nevertheless an interesting one, certainly knowing it was written in 2005 (I read the 2007 edition) and knowing with hindsight what has happened in the Middle East till this year.
Ferguson shows that the US doesn't have the stamina for empire building because of the lack of staying power when occupying a country. Japan, Germany and Korea after WWII are examples of succes in empire building as even 65 years after the war these countries still have an American military presence. Where they left after a short intervention, chaos returned quickly (Haiti, Liberia, Dominican Republic). America's young and bright people don't have a taste for governing an empire like 19th century Brits did. So, either they have to develop a taste for such a colonial bureaucracy or leave that to the UN or EU after the fighting has been done.
I would love to hear/read Fergusons opinion on the recent revolutions in Egypt, Tunesia and Libya
The book is perhaps more a pamphlet than an historical treatise, the message is nevertheless an interesting one, certainly knowing it was written in 2005 (I read the 2007 edition) and knowing with hindsight what has happened in the Middle East till this year.
Ferguson shows that the US doesn't have the stamina for empire building because of the lack of staying power when occupying a country. Japan, Germany and Korea after WWII are examples of succes in empire building as even 65 years after the war these countries still have an American military presence. Where they left after a short intervention, chaos returned quickly (Haiti, Liberia, Dominican Republic). America's young and bright people don't have a taste for governing an empire like 19th century Brits did. So, either they have to develop a taste for such a colonial bureaucracy or leave that to the UN or EU after the fighting has been done.
I would love to hear/read Fergusons opinion on the recent revolutions in Egypt, Tunesia and Libya
November 10, 2022
M-am apucat să scriu această carte din convingerea că rolul Statelor Unite în lumea de astăzi ar putea fi înţeles mai bine prin comparaţie cu imperii din trecut. Pentru mine era cât se poate de clar că majoritatea americanilor nu prea se îndeamnă să aplice ţării lor termenul „imperiu”, deşi o minoritate influentă (după cum confirmă primul motto de mai sus) este mai puţin inhibată. Dar ceea ce nu înţelesesem pe deplin până la publicarea primei ediţii* din Colosul era natura exactă a „negării ideii de imperiu” drept condiţie naţională. Am descoperit că în rândul liberalilor americani este acceptabil să spui că Statele Unite sunt un imperiu – cu condiţia să dezaprobi asta. Este permis şi să afirmi, printre conservatori, că puterea americană e potenţial benefică – dar cu condiţia să nu o califici drept imperialistă. Neîngăduit este să spui că Statele Unite sunt un imperiu şi că lucrul ăsta s-ar putea să nu fie chiar aşa de rău. Colosul şi-a propus să facă exact asta, reuşind astfel să-i irite şi pe criticii conservatori, şi pe cei liberali. Conservatorii au respins argumentul meu potrivit căruia Statele Unite sunt, ba chiar au fost mereu un imperiu. Liberalii au fost şocaţi de sugestia mea că
imperiul american ar putea avea şi atribute pozitive, nu doar negative.
La fel ca în Iolanthe de Gilbert şi Sullivan, şi în Statele Unite de astăzi pare să existe aşteptarea „Ca fiece copil, băiat sau chiar fetiţă,/ Care se naşte astăzi lumea spre-a vedea/ Să fie liberal din cap până-n tălpiţă/ Ori, dacă nu, un mic conservator sadea!”. Dar mă tem că această carte nu este nici una, nici alta.
imperiul american ar putea avea şi atribute pozitive, nu doar negative.
La fel ca în Iolanthe de Gilbert şi Sullivan, şi în Statele Unite de astăzi pare să existe aşteptarea „Ca fiece copil, băiat sau chiar fetiţă,/ Care se naşte astăzi lumea spre-a vedea/ Să fie liberal din cap până-n tălpiţă/ Ori, dacă nu, un mic conservator sadea!”. Dar mă tem că această carte nu este nici una, nici alta.
September 25, 2017
This was a very worthwhile read. The history of global imperialism was particularly interesting, as was the multi-dimensional comparison of current global powers. However, the author's fundamental theory - that America is an empire - suffers from a fatal oversight to which he has an incredible blind eye.
When an empire takes over, or colonizes, a new region, it does so with the expressed purpose of taking full control of the regional resources. Those resources are used and expended as the empire sees fit for the benefit of the empire. At least since the 1900's, America has never sent military into a new country/region with the goal of taking ownership of its resources like this. In fact, any time America has undertaken military action, at least one of these statements was true about the situation:
- it was the result of a war America did not start, or an unprovoked attack upon America (Japan, Germany)
- it was in defense of America and American interests (Afghanistan, Iraq)
- it was in defense of the global economy and liberal politics (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq)
- it was at the explicit request of an ally (again, Afghanistan, requested by Saudi Arabia)
- it was to defend an attacked/repressed people (Kuwait, Kosovo)
If America was even an altruistic liberal empire, it would only be fair for a majority of the expenses of these actions to be borne by those who benefited from them - the people of the destination country. However, in all these cases, it was *the American taxpayers* that paid the relevant expenses. That is not an empire.
Oh, and to call America "ungenerous" in it's international aid, as compared to the Euro-zone, is a disingenuous cheap shot. In this statement, the author ignored decades and decades of billions and billions of dollars in aid America distributed freely across the globe. It seems only fair that some other large developed countries finally started taking up some of this burden.
When an empire takes over, or colonizes, a new region, it does so with the expressed purpose of taking full control of the regional resources. Those resources are used and expended as the empire sees fit for the benefit of the empire. At least since the 1900's, America has never sent military into a new country/region with the goal of taking ownership of its resources like this. In fact, any time America has undertaken military action, at least one of these statements was true about the situation:
- it was the result of a war America did not start, or an unprovoked attack upon America (Japan, Germany)
- it was in defense of America and American interests (Afghanistan, Iraq)
- it was in defense of the global economy and liberal politics (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq)
- it was at the explicit request of an ally (again, Afghanistan, requested by Saudi Arabia)
- it was to defend an attacked/repressed people (Kuwait, Kosovo)
If America was even an altruistic liberal empire, it would only be fair for a majority of the expenses of these actions to be borne by those who benefited from them - the people of the destination country. However, in all these cases, it was *the American taxpayers* that paid the relevant expenses. That is not an empire.
Oh, and to call America "ungenerous" in it's international aid, as compared to the Euro-zone, is a disingenuous cheap shot. In this statement, the author ignored decades and decades of billions and billions of dollars in aid America distributed freely across the globe. It seems only fair that some other large developed countries finally started taking up some of this burden.
May 29, 2011
Many deny that the United States is an empire, but, actually, it is: in its military, political, economic, and cultural dominance, influence, wealth, and impact it is unparalleled, perhaps in all of history. In lieu of indignant or heated denial, why not accept it; indeed, why not embrace it? The United States has many flaws, and in its interaction with the rest of the (suppliant and envious) world there are numerous areas where improvement is not only possible, but necessary. This state of affairs notwithstanding, what other country could possibly manage such a position—one that it deeply believes it never set out to achieve—for such a length of time with a better overall record? What other hegemonic state could offer a more reasonable compromise between liberty and security, equality and division, shared economic success and selfish economic exploitation than this uniquely structured and existent North American colossus? Let us leave off the condemnation and the endless picking away at scabs and concentrate on how this imperial power can both improve itself and better enable the improvement of its tellurian neighbors—for however much you might disapprove of the status or actions of this global giant, its retreat or disappearance would leave a vacuum, and not only nature abhors the latter state; nobody knows what would arise to fill this void in such an absence, and history and statistics can but lead us to believe that in all likelihood it would be neither pleasant nor peaceful, let alone better.
IIRC, such is the gist of the case that Ferguson lays out in this counter-intuitive text, with a pleasingly penned, if somewhat tendentious examination of the United States as a modern powerhouse, undertaken from the sympathetic perch of a citizen of a nation that once held a similar—more overt, less dominant—position.
IIRC, such is the gist of the case that Ferguson lays out in this counter-intuitive text, with a pleasingly penned, if somewhat tendentious examination of the United States as a modern powerhouse, undertaken from the sympathetic perch of a citizen of a nation that once held a similar—more overt, less dominant—position.
November 2, 2017
Written in 2003, published in 2004, this is Economist/Historian Niall Ferguson's attempt in the Wake of the US Military Successes in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq(at first)to lay out a way forward for the "American Imperium". He uses trends, stories, graphs, and anecdotes, with the British Imperial experience as a guide, to show how America can proceed, and if we have the economic underpinnings to do so. It seems so promising and within reach. Unfortunately in the wake of that promising start, came Quagmire and mayhem in Both Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years, The US MegaRecession, The Arab Spring, Brexit, The rise of Putin, and the development of the AltRight/US Fascists. So this while at the same time we ignored his advice- the entire world shifted and many of the underpinnings of this book no longer hold true. That does not mean it is not worth reading. His portrayal of the pitfalls of empire are as germane as they were when he wrote them, and his comprehension of the dangers of unrestrained Nationalism seem almost more on point as we sit here today. Junior readers will find the pace fast but not impossible, and the reward well worth the challenge.
August 1, 2012
Niall Ferguson's account of how America became a "liberal empire" - replacing the British one - and how she can keep that status is sadly out of date by now. Ferguson predicts in this book that if anything will keep America from fulfilling it's basically benign role in the world, it's the government's insane fiscal policies and enormous deficit. If anything, things now are far worse (the book was written in 2003) what with the Obama administration's health care scam, bailout poncy schemes, and increased deficit spending. It was a nice run while it lasted, and Ferguson teaches us why modern American "imperialism" could have been a force for good. As always, he's a superb writer and this and his gifts for the facts makes his books worth reading.
November 29, 2016
The author is determined to goad the US to take more rigorous role and far-sighted responsibility in the world affairs. US remains, he argues, as a reluctant empire, if not an empire in denial. She, therefore, has been vacillating between isolationism and unilateralism ever since her emergence as an indisputable world power. These ambiguity and incoherence bode ill for the rest of the world as well as America.
In defense of his claim, I want to add raison d'etre of an empire. It has been persistent and recurrent one after another throughout our history, west or east, ancient or modern, within or without. Once the Victorian historian joked that the British had built their empire in a fit of absence of mind. The power abhors vacuum indeed.
In defense of his claim, I want to add raison d'etre of an empire. It has been persistent and recurrent one after another throughout our history, west or east, ancient or modern, within or without. Once the Victorian historian joked that the British had built their empire in a fit of absence of mind. The power abhors vacuum indeed.
June 12, 2022
America's expansion started in a peculiar manner. Instead of using the sword or guns to expand their land, Americans purchased it. From Louisiana to Alaska, American politicians negotiated deals with foreign nations to expand their land. At the time of Alaska's purchase, one of the last significant ones, the country's military capability was meagre, resembling one of Sweden. Most blood was spilled in a civil war to determine the nature of their own nation, foreign wars had been almost unheard of.
This changed over the two world wars, to which Americans felt they were pulled into, at a point where there seemingly was no choice other than to intervene. As soon as they entered WWII, Churchill reportedly stated that "after all, looks like we are going to win". Win they did, and the USA became the world's economic powerhouse as Europe laid in tatters.
It was then that the US tried their hand at being the global policeman. In Cold War they went to Korea, a deadly war that ended in a draw. Vietnam - even deadlier one, ending in an embarrassing defeat. In South America, the US attempted to direct many smaller countries towards democracy and capitalism, none of the projects were effective. One closest to home, Cuba, was a national embarrassment.
How could it be that such a colossus could not turn the world to their will? Partly it is because changing a nation's character and being is incredibly difficult. It is also because the US is reluctant at going all the way. In the beginning of the 21st century, after 9/11, USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as they established their presence, they spoke of their imminent exit. The supposed exit depends on nations becoming independent, and following the political systems that the US vouches for. Whether such a change is possible or not remains an open question. What is clear, however, is that to make such a change, the US would have to be incredibly patient and with a long-term presence. This they are not willing to do. Reading it in 2022, it is evident that none of the missions have ended with tangible results.
Tony Blair said in his address to the US Congress in 2003 that "All predominant power seems at a time invincible, but in fact, is transient". We are most likely living through the time when the great power realizes that its power has been transient. Ferguson says the main issues are economic - the US has taken on too much debt, and is a slave to the liabilities it has brought upon itself. I beg to differ - the main issue seems to be a political one. The two parties are as far apart as they have been in decades. Both democrats and republicans are pulled towards extremes, none of whom offer feasible solutions to the problems the nation faces. The colossus is fading away, question is if by some shock it can rise like a phoenix.
This changed over the two world wars, to which Americans felt they were pulled into, at a point where there seemingly was no choice other than to intervene. As soon as they entered WWII, Churchill reportedly stated that "after all, looks like we are going to win". Win they did, and the USA became the world's economic powerhouse as Europe laid in tatters.
It was then that the US tried their hand at being the global policeman. In Cold War they went to Korea, a deadly war that ended in a draw. Vietnam - even deadlier one, ending in an embarrassing defeat. In South America, the US attempted to direct many smaller countries towards democracy and capitalism, none of the projects were effective. One closest to home, Cuba, was a national embarrassment.
How could it be that such a colossus could not turn the world to their will? Partly it is because changing a nation's character and being is incredibly difficult. It is also because the US is reluctant at going all the way. In the beginning of the 21st century, after 9/11, USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as they established their presence, they spoke of their imminent exit. The supposed exit depends on nations becoming independent, and following the political systems that the US vouches for. Whether such a change is possible or not remains an open question. What is clear, however, is that to make such a change, the US would have to be incredibly patient and with a long-term presence. This they are not willing to do. Reading it in 2022, it is evident that none of the missions have ended with tangible results.
Tony Blair said in his address to the US Congress in 2003 that "All predominant power seems at a time invincible, but in fact, is transient". We are most likely living through the time when the great power realizes that its power has been transient. Ferguson says the main issues are economic - the US has taken on too much debt, and is a slave to the liabilities it has brought upon itself. I beg to differ - the main issue seems to be a political one. The two parties are as far apart as they have been in decades. Both democrats and republicans are pulled towards extremes, none of whom offer feasible solutions to the problems the nation faces. The colossus is fading away, question is if by some shock it can rise like a phoenix.
February 26, 2021
While not as engrossing as Ferguson's other works, Colossus presents a pertinent and important argument.
The United States is, indeed, an empire. But their reluctance to act imperial is leading to their downfall and a global system of chaos. This is exacerbated by a huge deficit and chronic manpower shortage (mostly caused by an unwillingness to be an empire).
The weakness of this book was Ferguson's reliance on numbers, which is not bad on an academic level. His figures and numbers make the right points and his use of them is sound. But as a reader, it is seldom pleasant to read through a dozen pages of numbers.
Overall, despite this not being his best work, I would still call it an essential read to understand the rise and fall of the world's most and least powerful empire.
The United States is, indeed, an empire. But their reluctance to act imperial is leading to their downfall and a global system of chaos. This is exacerbated by a huge deficit and chronic manpower shortage (mostly caused by an unwillingness to be an empire).
The weakness of this book was Ferguson's reliance on numbers, which is not bad on an academic level. His figures and numbers make the right points and his use of them is sound. But as a reader, it is seldom pleasant to read through a dozen pages of numbers.
Overall, despite this not being his best work, I would still call it an essential read to understand the rise and fall of the world's most and least powerful empire.
April 7, 2019
Não concordo com o Ferguson, apesar de ele ter alguns pontos de vista compreensíveis. Não acho que os EUA não queiram "ficar" nos países que ocupam porque não se consideram imperialistas, por exemplo. Acho também que Ferguson ignora em boa parcela, de certa forma convenientemente, as atitudes imperialistas dos EUA na América Central e América do Sul que deram origem a ditaduras sanguinárias (onde estaria a defesa da democracia aí?). E o engraçado é que ele até cita interesses empresariais nas incursões na América Central (nos anos 1930), mas não parece levar muito em consideração na conclusão do livro. Também acho que ele faz uma análise muito superficial dos motivos do subdesenvolvimento e faz comparações que são um tanto quanto descabidas. Enfim, o livro tem aspectos interessantes e resgata muitas coisas que eu já havia esquecido da Guerra do Kosovo, mas acredito que se trata de um assunto muito complexo para um livro tão curto.
July 3, 2017
A book with a provocative central thesis that nevertheless ranges about too widely and overlooks several key problems in exercising global power. Ferguson's central argument is that the US is an empire in denial, meaning that it has for at least a century played a hemispheric and then global role of establishing norms and standards, providing public goods, confronting , policing smaller states, and maintaining a relatively high level of economic openness. This kind of behavior fits with many previous empires, and Ferguson argues that having a global imperial power is better than not having one or having one that is illiberal. His comparisons of the US empire to the British one are highly thought-provoking and detailed.
Ferguson's goal in this book is in part to rehabilitate the concept of empire and imperialism, which is basically a swear word in American politics and most of the academy. In general, this is a welcome trend. For too long politicians have ignored America's imperial roles in the world, and for equally too long have academics simply used the word imperial to castigate the American use of power or influence abroad without seriously considering the full range of effects, positive and negative. He is probably right that a certain type of liberal imperialism, most commonly practiced by Britain, bequeathed to many parts of its empire large scale investments and capital flows, population flows, infrastructure, integration into international finance, education, public health, and a host of other "What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us" type benefits, to go along with plenty of violence, disenfranchisement, racism, and other bad stuff. This is a welcome tonic to the academy's promiscuous use of the word imperialism as a political bludgeon.
Still, I have a lot of problems with this central argument. Ferguson argues that the main things that inhibit the US from really practicing the long term occupation/nation-building projects needed for imperialism are the deficit at home, allied resistance to such a role, and American cultural ambivalence toward living abroad in crappy places like the British once did. Here is I think he is being naive. Even if US rule would be better for Liberia, Iraq, or Somalia, will the people there, all far more awakened to religious and national and anti-Western consciousness than during high European imperialism, accede to such a subordinate position? The answer, as intervention after US intervention in the third world, is a resounding no. There's also the problem of the US lacking the knowledge and expertise to actually reconstruct these societies (re: Edmund Burke or even Woodrow Wilson), which Ferguson completely overlooks in his blithe calls for the US to topple dictators and install democracies. To me this makes the empire question a bit moot. Lastly, who in American society will be doing the imperial grunt-work? If the wars in IQ and AF are any sign, it will be the least fortunate in our society who will carry out these tasks while the rest of us will scarcely sacrifice anything. This corrodes our unity and ethics as a nation. The US can still play an active role in preserving and protecting the liberal imperial order without occupying foreign lands the way Britain or France once did. In a way, this book was only feasible in 2004, when Iraq had not yet descended into complete anarchy and civil war.
Other problems abound, including a somewhat haphazard structure, many chapters without a clear connection to the thesis, excessively long paragraphs, and an almost total ignoring of the place of race in empire. As usual, Ferguson is cheeky, well-informed, and utterly iconoclastic. This has made his work strong in the past, but other times his work is a mixed bag. This book is pretty mixed, so I'd only recommend it to those who are very interested in the "America as Empire" debate or neoconservatism/liberal imperialism in the 90's and early naughts.
Ferguson's goal in this book is in part to rehabilitate the concept of empire and imperialism, which is basically a swear word in American politics and most of the academy. In general, this is a welcome trend. For too long politicians have ignored America's imperial roles in the world, and for equally too long have academics simply used the word imperial to castigate the American use of power or influence abroad without seriously considering the full range of effects, positive and negative. He is probably right that a certain type of liberal imperialism, most commonly practiced by Britain, bequeathed to many parts of its empire large scale investments and capital flows, population flows, infrastructure, integration into international finance, education, public health, and a host of other "What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us" type benefits, to go along with plenty of violence, disenfranchisement, racism, and other bad stuff. This is a welcome tonic to the academy's promiscuous use of the word imperialism as a political bludgeon.
Still, I have a lot of problems with this central argument. Ferguson argues that the main things that inhibit the US from really practicing the long term occupation/nation-building projects needed for imperialism are the deficit at home, allied resistance to such a role, and American cultural ambivalence toward living abroad in crappy places like the British once did. Here is I think he is being naive. Even if US rule would be better for Liberia, Iraq, or Somalia, will the people there, all far more awakened to religious and national and anti-Western consciousness than during high European imperialism, accede to such a subordinate position? The answer, as intervention after US intervention in the third world, is a resounding no. There's also the problem of the US lacking the knowledge and expertise to actually reconstruct these societies (re: Edmund Burke or even Woodrow Wilson), which Ferguson completely overlooks in his blithe calls for the US to topple dictators and install democracies. To me this makes the empire question a bit moot. Lastly, who in American society will be doing the imperial grunt-work? If the wars in IQ and AF are any sign, it will be the least fortunate in our society who will carry out these tasks while the rest of us will scarcely sacrifice anything. This corrodes our unity and ethics as a nation. The US can still play an active role in preserving and protecting the liberal imperial order without occupying foreign lands the way Britain or France once did. In a way, this book was only feasible in 2004, when Iraq had not yet descended into complete anarchy and civil war.
Other problems abound, including a somewhat haphazard structure, many chapters without a clear connection to the thesis, excessively long paragraphs, and an almost total ignoring of the place of race in empire. As usual, Ferguson is cheeky, well-informed, and utterly iconoclastic. This has made his work strong in the past, but other times his work is a mixed bag. This book is pretty mixed, so I'd only recommend it to those who are very interested in the "America as Empire" debate or neoconservatism/liberal imperialism in the 90's and early naughts.
May 10, 2015
This is a wonderful book with wonderful conclusions that is ill-served by a rather poor historical argument in the first half. Ferguson, swimming against the political currents, argues that not only has the U.S. always been an "empire in denial," but a Liberal American empire focused on ending genocide, introducing democratic values, and lowering poverty levels would be the best thing for the world. He makes the rather unique argument that, contrary to popular belief, the British Empire of old brought with it free market practices, notions of the rule of law, and democratic values to many of the nations it ruled over (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and India to name a few). While he doesn't turn a blind eye to atrocities done by both the British and America, he ultimately takes the view that, all things considered, a liberal empire, under America today or Britain before, is a good thing. The second half of the book is very good. Ferguson makes a compelling case for liberal empire, debunks the idea of the European Union as a potential rival, and warns his American readers of the greatest threats to their imperium: growing Social Security and Medicare costs, a short attention span, and little dedication on the parts of its citizens to maintaining its empire (i.e. small numbers of recruits for the government organizations and NGOs). Ferguson falters greatly though in the first half of the book where he charts America's rise to hegemony from the Revolution to the present. His retelling of American history only seems to hurt rather than help his argument. And his chapter on U.S. goals in Iraq glosses over the fact that the Bush administration made WMDs and not humanitarian concerns the main reason for invading Iraq. If Ferguson were to revise these sections in an updated text, I might be far more willing to give him a higher rating.
Read
December 23, 2007Niall Ferguson is predictably well-reasoning and thorough about making his case that the United States is an empire, and has been since the late 1800s. He makes the case that it is an empire in denial, and that this poses risks to the world peace. So while many on the extreme left would happily agree with everything so far, Ferguson then goes on to say that the USA needs to recognize it is an empire in order to fulfill it's duties properly as an empire. So I guess in summary, he has the view a bit of the US being a benevolent empire, although I think at some point he dismisses the notion of there being such a thing as a benevolent empire. I guess he just views history as an inevitability, to some extent, and that you can like America or not, but the fact is that it will not cede its power through anything less than war. And therefore, in order to maintain stability the US must maintain the status quo as best it can and prevent a serious challenger from emerging. His arguments are obviously a lot better reasoned than my garbled summary, but I think it is sort of the gist. After "War of the World", i'd read anything by Ferguson and probably like it. You don't have to always agree with him to enjoy it immensely.
July 4, 2012
Colossus displays Ferguson's usual talent for advocating unconventional propositions (in this case, that imperialism is in fact good and that the U.S. should embrace its imperial role in the world today). Unfortunately, Ferguson's analysis is somewhat unfocused and outdated. For example, if published today Colossus would devote much more attention to the rise of China as a peer competitor to the U.S. rather than on the European Union, which is itself crumbling. However, Colossus convincingly presents the case for Empire in an age in which "imperialism" has become a dirty word, and is thus worth reading if for no other reason than to challenge your views of Empire.
July 2, 2009
Major premise is that America has always been an Empire. We're like the Egyptians because we're just in de-nile.
We are different type of empire than previous ones, namely that we rebuild and let the conquered nation take over its own destiny. We also used the Monroe and Truman doctrine to keep a maintain a hold on spheres of influence. We also looked after struggling people groups, keeping our interests firmly in place. We must embrace our destiny and come to terms the fact that we are the most profoundly different empire in the history of the world.
We are different type of empire than previous ones, namely that we rebuild and let the conquered nation take over its own destiny. We also used the Monroe and Truman doctrine to keep a maintain a hold on spheres of influence. We also looked after struggling people groups, keeping our interests firmly in place. We must embrace our destiny and come to terms the fact that we are the most profoundly different empire in the history of the world.
Read
February 5, 2009Ferguson believes that empires are inherently good things. Colossus offers a provocative diatribe against America's underutilized power, self-absorption, and refusal to embrace a crucial global role. In the process, he analyzes the interaction between domestic and foreign policy, the roots of empires, the fit between globalization and imperialism, and America's many challenges, including funding the war on terror. Generally, Ferguson is balanced, readable, informative
October 2, 2015
Feeguson's an enemy of anyone engaged in anti-imperialist politics, but it gets 3 stars because he's one of the most honest right-wing authors out there. He doesn't mince words, and despite the employment of (sometimes not so) clever euphemisms, his project is one we ought to take seriously in combating.
December 12, 2007
His brilliant explanation as to why the USA only thinks it is an empire. Up to his usual ultra high sandards and vital for anyone wishing to understand the world in which we live
January 21, 2008
Meh. More of Niall Ferguson's smug nonsense.
Buuut entertaining enough.
Buuut entertaining enough.
March 4, 2017
Not one of Ferguson's best; tries to overlay the experience of the British Empire on to America.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews