Niall Ferguson

[Lord Baal]

Niall Ferguson is an excellent historian... ...When it comes to regurgitating secondary sources. He's incredibly good at digging up sources and researching his books. Unfortunately, Ferguson feels the need to, for lack of a better term, 'editorialise' everything he writes.

So he'll write half a book on WWI fantastically, having researched the topic to death, then proceed to write the second half in some sort of rambling, althistorical gibberish about how Germany's ultimate goal was the creation of the EU in 1915, and how totally awesome Niall Ferguson is in his pimpin' suit, homes, which is yet further proof that Germany invented a time machine using a De Lorean in 1932.

Yes, that's how far off the rails he goes. So, I'd suggest reading the first half of everything he's written if you're after information, and the second half if you want some good comedy.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

what's this guy doin' exactly? or why is he famous?

I've read "the ascent of money" and that's the only thing I know about him; and the book was mediocre and nothing else. Though he writes good if you read just for killing some time

 

[Zardnaar]

He writes well and several of his books are decent. He sort of counters the British Empire was universally awful myth that ends to float around in popular history. As far as historians go he is reaosnably charismatic to watch and entertaining.

 

[aelf]

I can't decide whether Niall Ferguson is a bad historian partly because the British Empire was truly pretty awful or whether the British Empire must have been pretty awful because Niall Ferguson the bad historian says that it wasn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

The British Empire wasn't unversally awful as you have to look at what preceded it and what cam e after it. Its true there were atrocities but in my country tribal warfare and slavery was rampant before colonisation, the Murghals in India massacred Hindus and lower caste Inidnas had more opportunity under the British than their own rulers. Similar deal in South Africa with the Zulu conquests. Not claiming the Empire was was innocent by any means but all empires have done much the same thing as the Britsh and in many cases worse such as the Islamic conquests of the middle east (or Tamerlane), the Spanish in North America or whatever. I would imagine some of the older people in Africa would miss the Empire and I have read of Africans claiming that they were better off under the British. The British also closed down the Atlantic, Afirican and Arabian slave trade for example. I'm aware the British also used slaves but slavery long predated the British Empire/

 

[Tee Kay]

*cough* it was the British who exploited and entrenched the caste system *cough*

 

[Lone Wolf]

The British Empire was just your average Empire, maybe a little on the bad side (the massive famines is what makes me say that). However, your average Empires are already quite bad.

 

[Zardnaar]

*cough* it was the British who exploited and entrenched the caste system *cough*

Yes but lower caste Indians were promoted and it wasn't like India was a paragon of enlightenment and human rights before the British took it over. The BE gets a bad rep because of various despotic leaders using it as an excuse to take over and generally run their country into the ground. n hindsight the BE was no worse than any other Empire and argueably better than most. Here the Maori got a treaty and massive amounts of capital flowed out of London. Somebody built the rail roads in India and Africa. It was racist by our standards but there was no widespead genocide that some of the other empires embarked on and they treated the natives better than the Americans or Spanish, had no serfdom like Russia. In alot of cases they ruled with the collusion and support of the local people. In India they were outumbered 1000-1, here various tribes willingly allied with the British so other tribes wouldn't kill and enslave them and the human rights record of the Ottoman Empire was worse than the British in the middle east in the post WW1 era.

The darkest mark againts the British was the slave trade they used until 1807 and that trade predated the British Empire and in the grand scheme of things they were involved for less than 2 centuries. Beats me how the Portugese and Arabs get a free pass on that one.

 

[Tee Kay]

So your defence is "but others were worse". It still wouldn't change the fact that it was a Bad Thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you're judging the BE with modern values espicially in regards to morality. No 16-19th century kingdom, empire, city state or whatever would hold up particuly well when viewed through the same light not even the USA which persecuted the Indians, and still had slavery going and blacks being murdered after the civil war. By the standards of the time the BE was actually better than most in terms of human rights and the like. Its a convenient scapegoat for various 'persecuted' people to latch onto- Arabs/Scots/Indians/Maori/Afircan or whatever.

 

[aelf]

Yes, judging old empires by the standards of their time does give you license to wax lyrical about their (relative) greatness. Carry on with your British Empire wankerypanegyric.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well the BE was the greatest empire in the history of the world

No point beatin yourself up over what your ancestors may or may not have done. Every Empire was built on the bones of someone else and virtually every monarch or autocrat was abyssmal by modern standards. Hell anyone with the worlds "The Great" in their title was a warmonger by our standards.

 

[Masada]

the Murghals in India massacred Hindus and lower caste Inidnas had more opportunity under the British than their own rulers.

Right alongside the rather fine job the Brits did of putting Dehli to the sword, and penis, in '87.

Yes but lower caste Indians were promoted and it wasn't like India was a paragon of enlightenment and human rights before the British took it over.

It wasn't after either

Its true there were atrocities but in my country tribal warfare and slavery was rampant before colonisation

The arrival of the British really changed all that.

Here the Maori got a treaty and massive amounts of capital flowed out of London.

Yes a really good trade that one, a fine piece of paper… it didn’t stand up for Maori during the Land Wars. It stand up and say: "You know chaps, the invasion of Waikato is being justified on really thin grounds, maybe we should take-stock and not, you know, ethnically cleanse Maori, appropriate their lands and maybe, just maybe, respect Maori rights to refuse to sell land enshrined under me". And that kids was how Maori rights to own land and maintain a modicum of freedom were respected... wait, it wasn't.

here various tribes willingly allied with the British so other tribes wouldn't kill and enslave them

Actually, by and large, Maori willingly allied themselves with the British not as a means of escaping death and enslavement but to make use of British belligerency to further their own aims.

But you're judging the BE with modern values espicially in regards to morality.

I'm not sure that's the truth, the quite deliberate massacres of Aboriginals under government auspices were rightly castigated by the colonial and imperial press. Same for the invasion of Waikato for instance. That's probably one of the more annoying facets of the British Empire, it often did something, in full knoweldge that it was wrong in doing so.

 

[Zardnaar]

And how did the treatment of the Maori differ from the treatment of Indians under the USA or the balcks in Africa under the Belgians or the sers in Russia, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or the Islamic massacres? Imperialism/being human seems to be the primary cause. Of course the British Empire abused various people but you don't exactly see people getting upset about the Romans or whatever because it is politically advantageous to bleat on about the evil Brits. Of course the Maori got a rough deal under the Brits but it wasn't a peaceful paradise either. Can't remember the name of the Maori chief who ravagaed the South Island in the 19th century and the Maoripracticed slavery as well. Good if you were in the stronger tribes I suppose.

 

[Arakhor]

The British Empire had the largest population in history and empires don't expand by being nice, so of course there'll be more to point to than anyone else. Is anyone going to claim that the United States is an unblemished modern empire?

 

[SnowlyWhite]

British Empire was universally awful myth

eck? that's popular where exactly? it was by far one of the best if you look at the average empire action, and it doesn't need much history study for that...

you should live near the russians to understand the definition of awful empire

 

[Tee Kay]

you don't exactly see people getting upset about the Romans or whatever

Because we're not talking to a Roman apologist at the moment.

Once again, "other people did it too" is not a valid defence.

 

[Quackers]

Britain was better than all the alternatives. Mughals dictators, Nazis, Soviets, Japanese ultra-nationalists. If I was an Indian I know which one I'd support

 

[Tee Kay]

Britain was better than all the alternatives. Mughals dictators, Nazis, Soviets, Japanese ultra-nationalists. If I was an Indian I know which one I'd support

Gandhi.

 

[aelf]

Well the BE was the greatest empire in the history of the world

No point beatin yourself up over what your ancestors may or may not have done. Every Empire was built on the bones of someone else and virtually every monarch or autocrat was abyssmal by modern standards. Hell anyone with the worlds "The Great" in their title was a warmonger by our standards.

Hey, I can't say you can't do it. But it's just being honest to see nostalgia for empire for what it is. Here, as a token of goodwill let me help you out:

"I say, drinking tea and hunting the tiger is good sport, old boy! What enlightenment we've brought to the uncivilised world."