- Save 10% on selected children’s books, compliments of Amazon Family Promotion exclusive for Prime members .
Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British Hardcover – 6 Oct 2011
Special offers and product promotions
Customers who bought this item also bought
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
He writes with wit and penetration, and every page of Empire can be read with relaxed pleasure (Spectator )
Paxman is witty, incisive, acerbic and opinionated . . . In short, he carries the whole thing off with panache bordering on effrontery
(Piers Brendon Sunday Times )
A very engaging account...with a good sprinkling of jokes, funny nicknames and sexual references. Paxman makes some very sharp points and writes well (Guardian )
About the Author
Jeremy Paxman was born in Yorkshire and educated at Cambridge. He is an award-winning journalist who spent ten years reporting from overseas, notably for Panorama. He is the author of five books including The English. He is the presenter of Newsnight and University Challenge and has presented BBC documentaries on various subjects including Victorian art and Wilfred Owen.
Top customer reviews
The book was well written by Jeremy, with some witty remarks of his dropped in here and there.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the old British Empire.
It was a hard book to put down once I started reading it, I read it over a weekend,a really good read!
"When India became independent in August 1947, the Empire lost four out of five of its citizens and freedom beckoned for all the others: Without India, the Empire was no more than a sounding gong." - from EMPIRE: WHAT RULING THE WORLD DID TO THE BRITISH
I acquired a fondness for England early. Growing up in my demographic - white, upper-middle class - in Southern California in the 1950s, it's not surprising that I was exposed to the tales of Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Sherlock Holmes by parents who loved to read. Moreover, while attending Catholic elementary school, the nuns instilled a hypnotic fascination with Henry VIII, who beheaded wives and dared wrench England from the embrace of the Holy Mother Church. (Dude!)
And, while collecting stamps, my perception soon expanded to Great Britain and the Empire. There were so many little, gummed pieces of paper from a multitude of faraway, exotic places with the young Queen's image on them! But even by then, the Empire was dissolving, India having gone its own way two years before I was born. But I wasn't aware of it.
EMPIRE by Jeremy Paxman is an intelligent and congenial discourse on the sociological effects on the British of possessing an Empire. Mind you, it's not, nor claims to be, a chronological history of the imperium, though the scope of the book is from beginning to end of the Empire's golden age.
The author is quite candid about a significant portion of the early Empire's financial underpinnings, i.e. the trade in slaves and opium. However, Paxman also points out that, once the British government took over administration of the foreign territories from the great trading houses and put it into the fairly reliable hands of the stolid colonial officers recruited from the home island's middle class eager to serve Queen and country, the British Empire wasn't a necessarily bad empire to be ruled by as far as such go; it left many valuable legacies (as exemplified in Road Through Kurdistan: Travels in Northern Iraq). It was only after the Second World War that a growing sentiment among the British public of "Why bother?" acted as a catalyst to bring the Empire low.
Occasionally, the author injects a bit of wry humor:
"Even those who had arrived in (India) as bachelors had only to wait for the longed-for cold season and the arrival of what later became known as the Fishing Fleet - young women from the home country out to net themselves a husband from among the single men serving in India ... The women who failed to find anyone suitable went back to England, nicknamed 'returned empties'."
A reader well-versed in Empire history may wonder why the author barely touches on some topics, if at all: the loss of the American colonies, the rise (and fall) of the British navy, the Afghan Wars, the partition of India. However, these omissions do not detract from the effect of the whole narrative in any way.
As an adult reader, such books as Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar and Like Wolves on the Fold: The Defence of Rorke's Drift created for me mental pictures accompanied by a soundtrack that included "Land of Hope and Glory" and "Rule Britannia." Of course, there's not much of that anymore. As Paxman concludes:
"The British Empire had begun with a series of pounces. Then it marched. Next it swaggered. Finally, after wandering aimlessly for awhile, it slunk away."
Nowadays, the state of the Empire is best reflected in Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire and The Teatime Islands: Adventures in Britain's Faraway Outposts, though even here, as noted in the former by author Simon Winchester when visiting Tristan da Cunha, the last faint echoes of Empire can still call-up some of the old feelings:
"A bugle was blown, a banner was raised, a salute was made, an anthem was played - and the Colonial Governor of St. Helena was formally welcomed on to the tiniest and loneliest dependency in the remnant British Empire. I found I was watching it through a strange golden haze, which cleared if I wiped my eyes with the back of my hand: the children looked so proud, so eager to please, so keen to touch the hand from England, from the wellspring of their official existence."
The reader may be left wondering what Queen Elizabeth II, who's presided over the Empire's ever diminishing status over the past 60 years, thinks of it all, but she's never been interviewed - not ever. Perhaps, "We are not amused."
Although it masquerades as history, the book is really an exercise in rhetoric. Paxman's trademark sneer translates well to the page. It is ironic that much of the book derides, at length, the elitist pretensions of the English, using a style and tone that immediately marks Paxman as the Oxbridge graduate that he is.
For somebody who repeatedly criticises the British for their Anglo centric view of the world, Paxman's own vision seems peculiarly distorted by the country he is writing in. For him, the British Empire is different from all other empires, apparently unique in its arrogance and exploitation. It is almost as if other empires did not exist. So he writes that the Treaty of Paris in 1763 made it "undeniable that Britain was the pre-eminent world power". The treaty did, indeed, mark the end of a war in which Britain had been victorious over France and Spain, but it returned many of the territories that Britain had captured from the Spanish and left Spain in control of the Americas from Louisiana and California down to Chile. Meanwhile Britain's American colonies were restricted to those parts of Canada that had been settled and the original thirteen American colonies together with the areas opened to the west as far as the Mississippi. Most of these territories, of course, were to be lost with American independence. Britain had significant possessions in India, but Clive's victory at Plassey had taken place only six years earlier and nobody in 1763 could have foreseen the growth of British power in India. Otherwise, British colonisation was limited to a few specks on the map in West Africa, the West Indies and, nearer home, Gibraltar and Minorca. Paxman's confident assertion that British pre-eminence was "undeniable" is unlikely to be echoed by a Spaniard.
Paxman's approach does mean that his book is not bogged down in the kind of tedious detail that I have just gone into in trying to define the size of the Empire in 1763. Such a definition is quite difficult. Do we include uninhabited and unexplored regions of the world as part of the Empire simply because they were painted red on the map? What of those distant shores where a visiting British captain had once planted a Union flag and then moved on? That's the problem with history: it's messy and complicated. Paxman's book gets rid of the mess and complications but, unfortunately, this means that he gets rid of much of the history as well. The absence of any solid foundation to this edifice is partially disguised by the use of lots of quotations with footnoted references. In many cases, though, the references are to secondary sources. That is, if you check the reference, it will turn out to be a recent publication by another author with no indication of where the original quote came from. This is particularly annoying if you are trying to check any chronological details as this approach means that the date of the original quote is not given anywhere in Paxman's book. He also has an annoying habit of referring to "colonial historians", which most readers, I think, would take to mean historians from Britain's colonial period, whereas Paxman uses the term to disguise the fact that he is citing a modern historian who writes about colonial history. It's possible that his use of this terminology is just sloppy and lazy, but I think it is difficult to see it as anything other than deliberately misleading.
Generally, the book left me with a the feeling that some of the detail in it might be plain wrong, but as I'm not a professional historian this remained, for a while, just a niggling doubt. That changed when the book moved onto the Indian Mutiny and, in particular, the siege of Cawnpore. I have written a novel set during the siege, so it is a historical event I know something about. It's easy enough to research. The Indian Mutiny generally, and the siege of Cawnpore in particular, was the subject of spectacularly detailed analysis in the years immediately following and several modern historians have produced excellent summaries. (The best is probably Ward's 'Our Bones are Scattered'.) Paxman makes several errors. He says that the rebel leader, Nana Sahib, was "a victim of the Company's new Doctrine of Lapse which decreed that only natural born sons could succeed to the father's lands". Nana Sahib did, indeed, suffer under the Doctrine of Lapse, as the British refused to recognise his title. He did not, however, have any lands to lose. His adoptive father had already forfeited these as the result of a failed rebellion many years earlier. Nana Sahib did lose his father's pension, but this was not because of the Doctrine of Lapse. Paxman claims that the shooting of prisoners was "too inefficient to act as a final solution" where most accounts agree that the rebel soldiers deliberately fired wide - an act for which they surely deserve some credit, even after 150 years. Most astonishing of all, Paxman claims that the women and children murdered in what is generally became known as the massacre of the bibighar, had not been included in the promise of safe passage given by the Nana Sahib. This is quite astounding, as even the most cursory reading of any of the literature about Cawnpore shows it to be simply untrue. The point, though not significant in the context of Paxman's arguments, is not a trivial one. The cold-blooded massacre of women and children who had surrendered under promise of safe conduct was a significant factor in the horrific level of reprisals conducted by British forces. Whilst it does not excuse British conduct (which did lead to expressions of concern even at the time) simply rewriting history in this way is quite extraordinary.
We can't blame Paxman for all the mistakes. His acknowledgements start with a credit to Jillian Taylor, who seems to have done much of the work. Paxman refers to himself as the writer. And here is the nub of the problem. Historians research their subject areas and, from the mass of information which they gather, they try to tease out some proper understanding of the subject. Paxman clearly started with his own prejudices (he read English at Cambridge and has no background in history) and then sent Ms Taylor off to gather up whatever factoids she could dredge up to support his position. In fairness, many of the factoids are fascinating. We learn, for example, that Lord Crewe, the Colonial Secretary, was so dull that it is alleged that a woman lost her mind listening to one of his speeches. We don't know who the woman was and no authority for the story is given, suggesting it is apocryphal, but it's amusing nonetheless. It isn't exactly history, but then neither is the extended summary of the plot of Rider Haggard's She with which he opens a chapter on the role of women in the Empire. Unattributed quote, after-dinner tales and outright fiction - it's all grist to Paxman's mill.
It would be easier to forgive the way in which Paxman has subjugated historical fact to the presentation of his rhetoric if all of this was done to illustrate some worthwhile argument. But, though the whole idea of Empire is clearly anathema to Paxman's 21st-century liberalism, it's not at all clear where he is going with this. He argues that modern Britain is itself a product of Empire, an argument that would surely be better supported by an analysis of modern Britain than by a trip through 300 years of colonial adventurism. He claims that the Empire was always about making money, but later discusses at length the good that was done by many young men who served abroad, dedicating themselves to the welfare of people that Britain had taken responsibility for and from whom it could never sensibly expect to make a profit. He details the brutality of some British military ventures but, finally, concedes that other nations have often behaved even worse and that, given the geo-political realities, many countries were better off under the protection of Britain than had they been left to other occupiers.
Perhaps, in the end, Paxman has accidentally stumbled on the truth of the British Empire. It was, indeed, in many ways a very bad thing, but sometimes it achieved things that changed the world for the better. (Paxman singles out the abolition of slavery as one of Britain's greatest achievements.) It was run by some wise men and a great number of fools. Many were in it just for what they could get out of it, while many a young man died far from home convinced that the good that he could achieve more than made up for his meagre salary. The British Empire was vast, inchoate and very, very complicated. The unthinking condemnation of Empire by modern liberals is as prejudiced and ignorant as the unthinking jingoism of an earlier generation. If other readers take this lesson from this extraordinarily poorly constructed book, then, perhaps, there is some tiny glimmer of worth hidden amongst all the dross.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Most recent customer reviews
All nations have their moment in history....Read more