Book Review: Colossus
I completed Niall Ferguson's recent work Colossus. A fascinating, but ultimately flawed look at the emergence of America as a global empire. Ferguson's thesis is that America's rise to imperial status is a benefit to the world, but paradoxically Americans do not acknowledge their status as an empire. To illustrate this point Ferguson fills much of his work with a look at our nation's rise to imperial status and then he discusses the benefits of the British Empire. He glosses over the horrors and atrocities committed by the British and chooses to focus almost exclusively on the supposed benefits rendered by the English. Ferguson writes about the British Empire opening markets and enforcing the rule of law in her colonies, but does not delve into the atrocities committed in under the guise of fulfilling the "white man's burden". He firmly believes that self-determination has not worked for much of the developing world, and only a new, 21st century "white man's burden" can lift developing nations from poverty.
Ferguson's main argument for an American liberal empire is to restore the good old days when non-Europeans prospered under European rule. When viewing just the raw numbers as Ferguson almost exclusively does he is correct. He touts statistics of per capita GDP that proves that only two sub-Saharan countries have escaped the cycle of economic failure evident in the rest (176). Two factors, which Ferguson merely plays lip service to, are the responsible for African and all other indigenously ruled nations dismal economic performance. The first and foremost being the cavalier and utterly self-serving way the European nations carved up land to suit their own economic needs. The states of Africa did not arrive in their present day boundaries by centuries of formation, but rather in the "scramble for Africa" in the late 1880s. Only after WWI and WWII were many of the colonies able to first experience self-rule, and then another factor began to hit, AIDS, which has devastated the populations of sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the two countries Ferguson mentions as escaping the supposed fate of freedom is Botswana. Botswana is an exception to most nations in Africa in that it has a relatively homogenous ethnic population (79% Tswana), has not been plagued by war, and has lead the way in sucessfully combating its high AIDS infection rates. Ethnic tension, warfare, and disease plague the entire region of sub-Saharan Africa with few exceptions. The inability to control disease is directly related to war and poor governance, and each of these factors can be directly attributed to colonial rule.
This legacy is the one that Ferguson wants America to resume? The drawbacks of imperialism vastly outweigh the benefits for the colonies. The next question is does the Ferguson's version of liberal imperialism benefit the empire?
One of the interesting facets of Ferguson's novel is his belief that America is an empire, but is not imperial enough. Whether we call it a hegemon, hyperpower, or any other term his end result is we are an empire now and we had better live up to this fact. Not caring to argue with Ferguson's exceptionally broad definition of empire, I look at his claim that America need to become more imperialistic.
I am a realist and believe that America should only send troops abroad when our national interest is at stake. Peacekeeping missions should not be undertaken solely by America unless a direct threat to our national interest is at stake, but rather should be under the domain of the UN and the Security Council. What Ferguson argues is that America is not performing enough altruistic work, and this is because of the classic American "attention deficit" disorder (290). Why should the American people have to accept large casualty numbers, huge costs for war, and world scorn and disapproval? I am in full agreement with him to stay the course in Iraq, but to invade Iran or North Korea without acknowledging the immense costs would be inane. One of the characteristics of the American people as a whole for our existence is our "bring our boys home" mentality. This is both good and bad, but one characteristic of this is no matter what the desires of Ferguson Americans will not have the stomach for a large-scale empire on the level of the British.
Ferguson's main argument for an American liberal empire is to restore the good old days when non-Europeans prospered under European rule. When viewing just the raw numbers as Ferguson almost exclusively does he is correct. He touts statistics of per capita GDP that proves that only two sub-Saharan countries have escaped the cycle of economic failure evident in the rest (176). Two factors, which Ferguson merely plays lip service to, are the responsible for African and all other indigenously ruled nations dismal economic performance. The first and foremost being the cavalier and utterly self-serving way the European nations carved up land to suit their own economic needs. The states of Africa did not arrive in their present day boundaries by centuries of formation, but rather in the "scramble for Africa" in the late 1880s. Only after WWI and WWII were many of the colonies able to first experience self-rule, and then another factor began to hit, AIDS, which has devastated the populations of sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the two countries Ferguson mentions as escaping the supposed fate of freedom is Botswana. Botswana is an exception to most nations in Africa in that it has a relatively homogenous ethnic population (79% Tswana), has not been plagued by war, and has lead the way in sucessfully combating its high AIDS infection rates. Ethnic tension, warfare, and disease plague the entire region of sub-Saharan Africa with few exceptions. The inability to control disease is directly related to war and poor governance, and each of these factors can be directly attributed to colonial rule.
This legacy is the one that Ferguson wants America to resume? The drawbacks of imperialism vastly outweigh the benefits for the colonies. The next question is does the Ferguson's version of liberal imperialism benefit the empire?
One of the interesting facets of Ferguson's novel is his belief that America is an empire, but is not imperial enough. Whether we call it a hegemon, hyperpower, or any other term his end result is we are an empire now and we had better live up to this fact. Not caring to argue with Ferguson's exceptionally broad definition of empire, I look at his claim that America need to become more imperialistic.
I am a realist and believe that America should only send troops abroad when our national interest is at stake. Peacekeeping missions should not be undertaken solely by America unless a direct threat to our national interest is at stake, but rather should be under the domain of the UN and the Security Council. What Ferguson argues is that America is not performing enough altruistic work, and this is because of the classic American "attention deficit" disorder (290). Why should the American people have to accept large casualty numbers, huge costs for war, and world scorn and disapproval? I am in full agreement with him to stay the course in Iraq, but to invade Iran or North Korea without acknowledging the immense costs would be inane. One of the characteristics of the American people as a whole for our existence is our "bring our boys home" mentality. This is both good and bad, but one characteristic of this is no matter what the desires of Ferguson Americans will not have the stomach for a large-scale empire on the level of the British.
<< Home