This week's reading...

[mixu]

Niall Ferguson's Empire and Colossus...

The first is a brilliant explanation of how a small island in the North Atlantic managed to rule the world. Some have called him an apologist for the British Empire but he's a very compelling writer and answers a lot of questions of why the world is the way it is today.

The second is, if you like, a sequel. Picking up where Britain declined and the US became the dominant superpower, it's more of a rich polemic arguing that the US is, and has always been, an empire. An empire in denial.

While the first half is historical, like the first book, it goes on to argue that the US should assert its power ? the world needs a dominant force. Nation-states are a relatively new phenonemon and haven't, necessarily, worked.

It gets a bit bogged down in economic analysis ? the $45 trillion black hole in the economy is a bit worrying ? but he does demonstrate that the war in Iraq was inevitable although the case for it was badly made.

While Ferguson is a conservative, with a small 'c', he has the perspective of history in which all his work is grounded. Recommended.

[Yao]

Re: This week's reading...

I would especially like to read on what you mentioned, that he says nation-states have not always worked. Very interesting, since in the past decades we've seen the rise of a number of new one, but not many disintegrations I gotta say. The Nation-State does howver work best in ethnically homogenous areas, and seems to run into problems where ethnic diversity is prominent.

It is one of the things I'd like to do someday...see If I can find a way in which a nation-state could be consolidated even when there is great ethnic diversity in that state. Federalism and consocialism have been tried, but so far with limited succes, and Museveni has so far managed to keep his country (Uganda) pretty stable with his 'Movement'...

[Lorn]

Re: This week's reading...

I'll check these out. Historical analysis is imo an under used tool.

[mixu]

Re: This week's reading...

I would especially like to read on what you mentioned, that he says nation-states have not always worked. Very interesting, since in the past decades we've seen the rise of a number of new one, but not many disintegrations I gotta say. The Nation-State does howver work best in ethnically homogenous areas, and seems to run into problems where ethnic diversity is prominent.

Most of what he says about nation-states is in regard to empires ? whether forceful or benevolent ? and essentially the argument is that a liberal empire is better for the world than hundreds of nation-states. The imposition of a standard democratic model with an overseeing power makes for a better world order.

It's not necessarily an opinion to agree with but there's a lot of truth in it.

Umm, very difficult book to summarise.