What do you think?
Rate this book
Ghosts of Empire: Britain's Legacies in the Modern World
The British Empire was the creation of a tremendous outpouring of energy and opportunism, when the British were at their most self-confident, and the wealth they gathered was prodigious. At its heart lay a sense of the rectitude of the British way of life, meted out to vast swathes of the rest of the world without let or hindrance. Yet, as this book shows, the empire was not formed by coherent policy, and its decline reflected this: its later years were characterised by a series of accidental oversights, decisions taken without due consideration for the consequences, and uncertain pragmatism. Many of the world's trouble spots are those left behind by the chaotic retreat of empire, and its ghosts continue to haunt today's international scene. The problems the empire encountered have still not been resolved and in Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria and Hong Kong new difficulties have arisen which continue to baffle politicians and diplomats. This powerful new book addresses the realities of the British Empire from its inception to its demise, questioning the nature of its glory and cataloguing both the inadequacies of its ideals and the short-termism of its actions.
465 pages, Hardcover
First published February 7, 2012
78 people are currently reading
1413 people want to read
About the author
Kwasi Kwarteng
13 books16 followersKwasi Alfred Addo Kwarteng is a British politician and historian. A member of the Conservative Party, he has served as a member of parliament (MP) since 2010, representing the constituency of Spelthorne in Surrey.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
May 4, 2012
Ghosts of Empire is a series of essays on different parts of the British Empire from the late 1700s through to post World War II independence. It’s an interesting cavalcade of characters and plot lines all driven by the notion of imperial global dominance. The author, a Conservative MP, is quite forgiving of many of Empire’s more brutal moments but, having clear African lineage himself, is more even handed than some of his party contemporaries may be when discussing the likes of Burma, Iraq, Nigeria and Sudan. Where the book excels is in the potted histories of some of the forgotten or overshadowed figures of Empire and some of the crazy one-off stories such as Kashmir being bought by a sole individual who basically bought a kingship from the British government.
Where Kwarteng lets himself down is not in what he says but in what he does not say. Quite how you can have a book on the British Empire without covering India and all that entails is quite ludicrous. India is mentioned in passing while explaining other countries in the region such as Burma and specifically the region of Kashmir but India is never tackled. Perhaps the author thought that this was too negative a subject in his generally sunny overview of imperialism or he is gearing up for a fuller account of the subject in a later release. Either way it is sad that the author never mentions any of the key events from this part of the world which not only shaped India but also shaped imperial policy of the time. Similarly the Opium Wars with China are dealt with over a couple of pages in a longer story of Hong Kong, surely these events should have been dealt with in reverse with regard to prominence. Kenya and the invention of concentration camps are ignored, the racialist policies of southern African are breezed over while Ireland gets no mention at all. To cover the whole of Empire in one volume is a near impossible task and some things have to end up on the cutting room floor but Bloody Sunday, Amritsar, the Black Hole, famine, war.... the list of things omitted goes on and it’s a shame because when Karteng writes on things, he writes with clarity and verve if at times slightly more in favour of his subject than I would approve of.
One other key failing is his tendency to lapse in to modern interpretations of events. Islamic fundamentalism crops up more than is necessary for the time and it is simply false to state that the government was fearful of the threat from militant Islam more than anything else in Empire. Militant Hinduism was far more of a cause for concern with Islamic troops working with the Empire more readily than most other religions and Zionism positively terrified the established classes in a time of rampant anti-Semitism and calls for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It is a good book for its candid approach to individuals but ultimately misleading on the facts, it cannot be a key reference source for future study and for that reason is a missed opportunity for an undoubtedly talented writer.
Where Kwarteng lets himself down is not in what he says but in what he does not say. Quite how you can have a book on the British Empire without covering India and all that entails is quite ludicrous. India is mentioned in passing while explaining other countries in the region such as Burma and specifically the region of Kashmir but India is never tackled. Perhaps the author thought that this was too negative a subject in his generally sunny overview of imperialism or he is gearing up for a fuller account of the subject in a later release. Either way it is sad that the author never mentions any of the key events from this part of the world which not only shaped India but also shaped imperial policy of the time. Similarly the Opium Wars with China are dealt with over a couple of pages in a longer story of Hong Kong, surely these events should have been dealt with in reverse with regard to prominence. Kenya and the invention of concentration camps are ignored, the racialist policies of southern African are breezed over while Ireland gets no mention at all. To cover the whole of Empire in one volume is a near impossible task and some things have to end up on the cutting room floor but Bloody Sunday, Amritsar, the Black Hole, famine, war.... the list of things omitted goes on and it’s a shame because when Karteng writes on things, he writes with clarity and verve if at times slightly more in favour of his subject than I would approve of.
One other key failing is his tendency to lapse in to modern interpretations of events. Islamic fundamentalism crops up more than is necessary for the time and it is simply false to state that the government was fearful of the threat from militant Islam more than anything else in Empire. Militant Hinduism was far more of a cause for concern with Islamic troops working with the Empire more readily than most other religions and Zionism positively terrified the established classes in a time of rampant anti-Semitism and calls for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It is a good book for its candid approach to individuals but ultimately misleading on the facts, it cannot be a key reference source for future study and for that reason is a missed opportunity for an undoubtedly talented writer.
May 9, 2015
A tremendous work of scholarly research and a treasure of information about the British Empire and its colonies and how the entire Empire was administered. The book has sections on Iraq, Kashmir, Sudan, Burma, Nigeria and Hong Kong - all states under the rule of the British Empire and an analysis of what went on in these states during the rule --- and the author's main contention of how decisions of individuals, rather than policies formed by London affected the destiny of these states and more often for the worse. This book is a text book of sorts, full of history which many of us would not have read much about. Being a history (text) book, it surely compromises on brisk / pacy writing style but information-history seekers would be glad to read this book for sure. Also the research on the Governor Generals, their upbringing, their education, their life style, their individual choices / beliefs and how it affected the destiny of both the locals as well as the British Empire is discussed at length.
March 9, 2016
The main argument of this engaging account of the British Empire is that the British Empire never had a coherent central policy to guide its colonies that were spread all over the world.
Kwasi Kwarteng visits six different colonies (Iraq, Nigeria, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Burma, and Sudan), in which he reviews how the British administration governed those colonies. He reaches the conclusion that the British Empire was ruled by individuals and, therefore, each colony was ruled differently without any consistencies between them. Moreover, Kwarteng argues that even policies within the same colony tended to change when the governor was replaced by a new governor.
Although I was rather convinced by Kwarteng argument, I still cannot stop to think why he chose these specific colonies. And he failed to address the fact that central governments tend to change their policies all the time. Nevertheless, regardless if you agree or disagree, "Ghosts of Empire" is filled with very insightful and interesting information to be highly appreciated by every history fan out there.
Kwasi Kwarteng visits six different colonies (Iraq, Nigeria, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Burma, and Sudan), in which he reviews how the British administration governed those colonies. He reaches the conclusion that the British Empire was ruled by individuals and, therefore, each colony was ruled differently without any consistencies between them. Moreover, Kwarteng argues that even policies within the same colony tended to change when the governor was replaced by a new governor.
Although I was rather convinced by Kwarteng argument, I still cannot stop to think why he chose these specific colonies. And he failed to address the fact that central governments tend to change their policies all the time. Nevertheless, regardless if you agree or disagree, "Ghosts of Empire" is filled with very insightful and interesting information to be highly appreciated by every history fan out there.
November 26, 2015
The unifying theme of Ghosts of Empire is of the haphazard, non-consistent nature of the British Empire, where the idiosyncratic decisions of individual governors made for widely varying policy. As great the latitude given these individuals may have been, Kwarteng points out that they tended to share a rather narrow educational background --mostly "public" (boarding) schools, preferably of a limited "approved" set, usually concentrating in History or Classics, often more athletically than academically distinguished. Proficiency in learning foreign languages helped but wasn't absolutely necessary. Physical fortitude was a requirement for a colonial posting as the environment was often harsh and the sanitary considerations questionable. As in War and Gold, Kwarteng uses his unifying theme to anchor some pretty interesting narrative material. Some of these narratives (Iraq, the Sudan) are more familiar than others (Burma, Hong Kong), in the mind of the contemporary current-events-savvy reader. There's always the nagging suspicion that the examples are being shaped to fit the point the author is trying to make. However, Ghosts of Empire does a good job of illustrating how the not-so-distant past informs today's geopolitical conflicts.
January 5, 2025
Kwasi Kwarteng writes a history of the British Empire that cuts like a knife through preconceptions and understandings of what it was about - for me anyway. His argument that the empire was steered and framed by decisions by a series of charismatic and individualistic leaders exported from Britain gives a completely different view to that which is often portrayed. More than anything, his view is that the empire was about trade and making money and protecting individual reputation and prestige, rather than furthering human endeavour. This rings so true. The insights behind why we have Biafra, why Hong Kong was a shameful episode, why the disaster of perpetual conflict in Kashmir continues lies in the failure of the British approach. But that's not what I was taught or believed. Always with humans it is follow the money. It reveals everything. Excellent book. Beautifully researched snd written with clarity and restraint.
October 22, 2019
Kwasi Kwarteng takes you on a historic journey through time across the globe, describing a world that existed before Britannia, the folly that was wreaked unwittingly by heroes of Empire and with that legacy, it provides an excellent lens to study modern geopolitical affairs, be it the Iraq and Afghan situation, Kashmir, Congo among others.
The doings of highly individualistic and ambition driven men, the heroes of Empire often were at odds with the Empire itself, have given us a legacy we aren't quite sure what to do with.
An eye opener for anyone wanting to have a well nuanced argument on international politics.
The doings of highly individualistic and ambition driven men, the heroes of Empire often were at odds with the Empire itself, have given us a legacy we aren't quite sure what to do with.
An eye opener for anyone wanting to have a well nuanced argument on international politics.
May 12, 2025
The book has a weird premise. That British Governors of colonies behaved in a highly individual way. And that they were from a certain class and certain public schools.
The first problem was that everytime a new British name was mentioned, the author practically included his/her exam marksheets ! On and on in great detail about their schooling and upbringing every single time ! Comical.
The second problem is that, even today in democracies with a clear Left-Right divide like UK, policies now change significantly with change in government. There was a consensus on gender/social/political equality, LQBTQ rights etc and now that those issues have been conquered, the Left has lost its marbles. And so the divide is getting sharper in mainland Europe too. So, swings in policy, sometimes extremely sharp swings too, take place today too.
The third problem is that neither the history of British imperialism nor the “Ghosts of Empire” in today’s world are comprehensively covered. Insights are missing.
And lastly, there are weird comments like Chinese disdain towards mercantilism being core factor for Opium Wars, Kashmiri Hindu Pandits being blamed for the terrorism inflicted on them and a disregard for impact of centuries long Ottoman colonialism on Iraq.
Finally, i wonder if the praise for this book is due to political reasons or some DEI type policy ? Sorry but have read much much better.
The first problem was that everytime a new British name was mentioned, the author practically included his/her exam marksheets ! On and on in great detail about their schooling and upbringing every single time ! Comical.
The second problem is that, even today in democracies with a clear Left-Right divide like UK, policies now change significantly with change in government. There was a consensus on gender/social/political equality, LQBTQ rights etc and now that those issues have been conquered, the Left has lost its marbles. And so the divide is getting sharper in mainland Europe too. So, swings in policy, sometimes extremely sharp swings too, take place today too.
The third problem is that neither the history of British imperialism nor the “Ghosts of Empire” in today’s world are comprehensively covered. Insights are missing.
And lastly, there are weird comments like Chinese disdain towards mercantilism being core factor for Opium Wars, Kashmiri Hindu Pandits being blamed for the terrorism inflicted on them and a disregard for impact of centuries long Ottoman colonialism on Iraq.
Finally, i wonder if the praise for this book is due to political reasons or some DEI type policy ? Sorry but have read much much better.
December 13, 2024
very well written and researched.
January 22, 2016
While the book was a good read as with Tory politicians Kwasi Kwarteng stopped short of condemning the British Empire. Which is self evident in light of the continuing problems in the world were caused by the empire's interference around the world.
January 1, 2017
Ghosts of Empire is a brilliant read for history buffs on the working and the legacy of the British Empire, on how individualism was highly valued and often lead to lasting bad consequences in the places it was practiced and the problems it caused.
December 29, 2021
This is an engaging series of case-studies into the way(s) in which the British Empire expanded through the 19th and 20th centuries from Nigeria to Hong Kong, with much to recommend it. But before we consider the core of Kwasi Kwarteng's argument, it is worth pointing out what this book is not. Despite the subtitle, "Britain's Legacies in the Modern World", only a small part of each case study is devoted to the modern geopolitical impacts of empire on the former colonies. If your priary interest is geopolitics rather than history, you will be disappointed.
If both of these appeal, however, this is an engaging read. Kwarteng's central arguments can broadly be summarised as follows:
- There was no consistent British policy in terms of how the Empire should be expanded and governed.
- Instead, most governance was routinely left to the men "on the spot" (often a particular sort of middle class, privately educated man who read classics at Oxford and enjoyed sports).
- Because of this, policy could often be reversed on a whim, for example with a change of colonial governor.
- This also led to strange inconsistencies, for example establihsing a monarchy ex nihilo in Kashmir, while dismantling one in what is now Myanmar.
- Generally, the Empire did not merely mimic social heirarchies seen in Britain, but often created new heirarchies, which often remained engrained long after these same norms began to lessen in the UK.
- The primary driver of Empire varied from situation to situation, but was often economic (and sometimes geopolitical); the idea that the Empire brought along with it development or democracy was at best a post hoc justification, and at worst an outright fabrication.
There is a lot in this to agree with. Certainly, that Empire developed without a coherent plan, driven primarily by short-term interests, rather than some grand mission, seems hard to argue. However some parts of this thesis feel less well justified. In particular, Kwarteng emphasises the power of local administrators in rulling colonies more or less autonomously, but by focusing his analysis on these men, more or less ignores what activity was taking place in Whitehall and Westminster, meaning it is hard to get a sense of how far the local men were alligned with politics back home.
Similarly, Kwarteng is (rightly) critical of the lack of a coherent plan or consistent approaches to the Empire. In one regard this may be accurate; for example, he notes the imposition of new client monarchs in Kashmir and in Iraq, in contrast to the removal of an existing client monarch in Myanmar. Yet the underlying consistency which Kwarteng ignores is one of using client rulers where they could be controlled, in order to lower costs, and imposing direct rule, if and when it became necessary. The primary driver, as Kwarteng recognises, was economic pragmatism, yet it seems to me that this very pragmatism explains the different approaches taken in different contexts.
Kwarteng's criticism also ignores the reality that the British political system at home is set up in such a way as to facilitate or even encourage rapid reversals of government policy. In an adversarial, two party system, it is entirely normal that government policy turns on the flip of a coin, and that the implications of such rapid reversals may be felt across the Empire. For example, even if decisions were largely left to the men on the spot, the decisions as to who appointed those men could be significant. Over it's 150 years as a colony, Hong Kong had 25 governors - an average term of ~6 years. A new government might therefore easily shift policy Hong Kong, simply by their choice of new governor - sadly, Kwarteng doesn't really interrogate this question.
All in all, this is an interesting lens into the piecemeal development of the Empire, and any one part might provide a useful case study, but I am less convinced that Kwarteng has entirely justified his overarching argument.
If both of these appeal, however, this is an engaging read. Kwarteng's central arguments can broadly be summarised as follows:
- There was no consistent British policy in terms of how the Empire should be expanded and governed.
- Instead, most governance was routinely left to the men "on the spot" (often a particular sort of middle class, privately educated man who read classics at Oxford and enjoyed sports).
- Because of this, policy could often be reversed on a whim, for example with a change of colonial governor.
- This also led to strange inconsistencies, for example establihsing a monarchy ex nihilo in Kashmir, while dismantling one in what is now Myanmar.
- Generally, the Empire did not merely mimic social heirarchies seen in Britain, but often created new heirarchies, which often remained engrained long after these same norms began to lessen in the UK.
- The primary driver of Empire varied from situation to situation, but was often economic (and sometimes geopolitical); the idea that the Empire brought along with it development or democracy was at best a post hoc justification, and at worst an outright fabrication.
There is a lot in this to agree with. Certainly, that Empire developed without a coherent plan, driven primarily by short-term interests, rather than some grand mission, seems hard to argue. However some parts of this thesis feel less well justified. In particular, Kwarteng emphasises the power of local administrators in rulling colonies more or less autonomously, but by focusing his analysis on these men, more or less ignores what activity was taking place in Whitehall and Westminster, meaning it is hard to get a sense of how far the local men were alligned with politics back home.
Similarly, Kwarteng is (rightly) critical of the lack of a coherent plan or consistent approaches to the Empire. In one regard this may be accurate; for example, he notes the imposition of new client monarchs in Kashmir and in Iraq, in contrast to the removal of an existing client monarch in Myanmar. Yet the underlying consistency which Kwarteng ignores is one of using client rulers where they could be controlled, in order to lower costs, and imposing direct rule, if and when it became necessary. The primary driver, as Kwarteng recognises, was economic pragmatism, yet it seems to me that this very pragmatism explains the different approaches taken in different contexts.
Kwarteng's criticism also ignores the reality that the British political system at home is set up in such a way as to facilitate or even encourage rapid reversals of government policy. In an adversarial, two party system, it is entirely normal that government policy turns on the flip of a coin, and that the implications of such rapid reversals may be felt across the Empire. For example, even if decisions were largely left to the men on the spot, the decisions as to who appointed those men could be significant. Over it's 150 years as a colony, Hong Kong had 25 governors - an average term of ~6 years. A new government might therefore easily shift policy Hong Kong, simply by their choice of new governor - sadly, Kwarteng doesn't really interrogate this question.
All in all, this is an interesting lens into the piecemeal development of the Empire, and any one part might provide a useful case study, but I am less convinced that Kwarteng has entirely justified his overarching argument.
January 14, 2020
Ghosts that haunt us still
This non-fiction journey through six former British colonies is very timely, as five of them made the news this year: Hong Kong (protests); Kashmir (India revoking its special status); Burma (the Rohingya massacres and war crimes charges in the Hague); Iraq (continuing unrest and instability) and Sudan (protests and the ouster of longtime dictator, Omar al-Bashir). The sixth country, Nigeria, has thankfully had a relatively quiet 2019.
Kwarteng’s overall thesis is that the British governed their colonies on an ad hoc basis, with policy being determined by the particular colonial officer who rose to power in each colony, and changing when that officer changed. He explores the thesis colony by colony, showing us how the events in each particular location have largely contributed to the current instability there. For example, in Hong Kong, he traced how uninterested the British were in giving democratic rights to the populace until the Thatcher years, ie: right before the scheduled handover to China. Not only did this mean that democratic ideals hadn’t had a chance to take any foothold before the handover, but it also strained relations between China and the West because China saw it as an underhanded move aimed at the Chinese state as opposed to a real belief in democracy. It’s a really interesting history to look back on now as protests seeking more automony are rocking Hong Kong. The other countries are equally interesting and throws the recent events in those countries into a new light.
The criticisms I read of this book tended to focus on either a) Kwarteng apologizing for/excusing the British; and/or b) the history not being fulsome enough (leaving out India, choosing these particular countries rather than others, etc.). I don’t find either of these criticisms particular compelling. Firstly, I didn’t read anything in this book as apologizing for the British- to the contrary, the impacts of the decisions the British made are often appalling, and Kwarteng traces these lines neatly- this accords blame not absolves it. Secondly, the complaint about this book not being fulsome enough is ridiculous- the British Empire was huge, there is no way to address it in a single book. If you have an interest in India or other colonies specifically, I’m sure there’s a book out there that gets into it, and you can read that book with Kwarteng’s thesis in mind- see if it fits there too (or write your own book about it!).
This non-fiction journey through six former British colonies is very timely, as five of them made the news this year: Hong Kong (protests); Kashmir (India revoking its special status); Burma (the Rohingya massacres and war crimes charges in the Hague); Iraq (continuing unrest and instability) and Sudan (protests and the ouster of longtime dictator, Omar al-Bashir). The sixth country, Nigeria, has thankfully had a relatively quiet 2019.
Kwarteng’s overall thesis is that the British governed their colonies on an ad hoc basis, with policy being determined by the particular colonial officer who rose to power in each colony, and changing when that officer changed. He explores the thesis colony by colony, showing us how the events in each particular location have largely contributed to the current instability there. For example, in Hong Kong, he traced how uninterested the British were in giving democratic rights to the populace until the Thatcher years, ie: right before the scheduled handover to China. Not only did this mean that democratic ideals hadn’t had a chance to take any foothold before the handover, but it also strained relations between China and the West because China saw it as an underhanded move aimed at the Chinese state as opposed to a real belief in democracy. It’s a really interesting history to look back on now as protests seeking more automony are rocking Hong Kong. The other countries are equally interesting and throws the recent events in those countries into a new light.
The criticisms I read of this book tended to focus on either a) Kwarteng apologizing for/excusing the British; and/or b) the history not being fulsome enough (leaving out India, choosing these particular countries rather than others, etc.). I don’t find either of these criticisms particular compelling. Firstly, I didn’t read anything in this book as apologizing for the British- to the contrary, the impacts of the decisions the British made are often appalling, and Kwarteng traces these lines neatly- this accords blame not absolves it. Secondly, the complaint about this book not being fulsome enough is ridiculous- the British Empire was huge, there is no way to address it in a single book. If you have an interest in India or other colonies specifically, I’m sure there’s a book out there that gets into it, and you can read that book with Kwarteng’s thesis in mind- see if it fits there too (or write your own book about it!).
June 10, 2025
II can't pretend that this book does not have agenda based on the time it was writen, to target those neoconservative cheerleaders of empire – Niall Ferguson, Michael Gove – who regard British colonialism as a "good thing" and the model for a modern Pax Americana. "The British empire is not some prelude to a modern 21st-century western world democracy, multiculturalism and liberal economics," Kwarteng insists. "The British empire was something different."
Instead, Ghosts of Empire shows how again and again, British officials made wrong choices at crucial moments in both empire building and decolonisation with terrible long-term consequences. So this is largely a study of the colonial elite and Kwarteng attempts to unpick "the mentality of the empire's rulers, to describe their thoughts and their ideals and values". It is an uncomplicated top-down story of governor-generals and colonial secretaries, heavily influenced by David Cannadine's work on "ornamentalism" and the role of social class in British imperialism.
In certain contexts, this works well. "Sudan: 'Blacks and Blues'" is a brilliant account of the Sudan political service, almost entirely composed of Oxbridge sporting blues ruling over African blacks. Here the Victorian notion of character, manfulness, and playing the game constituted all the necessary attributes for governing this bifurcated Arab-African state. Sir Reginald Wingate, governor general of the Sudan, rejected one candidate on the grounds that there was "something Levantine about him and as you know that fact alone makes him undesirable".
There are obvious objections to this approach to empire. There is little sense of indigenous agency; events simply happen to the colonised. Any appreciation of subaltern studies – an investigation of those at the lower end of the imperial foodchain – is absent. And there is a tendency to read back into the entirety of the empire – which encompasses Virginia in the 1620s, Dublin in the 1790s, Melbourne in the 1850s – the rather specific mentality of late 19th-century imperialism.
There are many good things in the book and I can't really criticise anyone providing a good demolition job to the absurdities of Niall Ferguson but this should only be stage one in understanding empire. It is a complex and ugly story but what that needs to be understood.
Instead, Ghosts of Empire shows how again and again, British officials made wrong choices at crucial moments in both empire building and decolonisation with terrible long-term consequences. So this is largely a study of the colonial elite and Kwarteng attempts to unpick "the mentality of the empire's rulers, to describe their thoughts and their ideals and values". It is an uncomplicated top-down story of governor-generals and colonial secretaries, heavily influenced by David Cannadine's work on "ornamentalism" and the role of social class in British imperialism.
In certain contexts, this works well. "Sudan: 'Blacks and Blues'" is a brilliant account of the Sudan political service, almost entirely composed of Oxbridge sporting blues ruling over African blacks. Here the Victorian notion of character, manfulness, and playing the game constituted all the necessary attributes for governing this bifurcated Arab-African state. Sir Reginald Wingate, governor general of the Sudan, rejected one candidate on the grounds that there was "something Levantine about him and as you know that fact alone makes him undesirable".
There are obvious objections to this approach to empire. There is little sense of indigenous agency; events simply happen to the colonised. Any appreciation of subaltern studies – an investigation of those at the lower end of the imperial foodchain – is absent. And there is a tendency to read back into the entirety of the empire – which encompasses Virginia in the 1620s, Dublin in the 1790s, Melbourne in the 1850s – the rather specific mentality of late 19th-century imperialism.
There are many good things in the book and I can't really criticise anyone providing a good demolition job to the absurdities of Niall Ferguson but this should only be stage one in understanding empire. It is a complex and ugly story but what that needs to be understood.
March 22, 2024
When I heard that Kwasi had written a book on Britain's imperial legacy, I was intrigued, but also a bit surprised given his conservative politics. He is quite forgiving of the Empire's most brutal moments and seems to have internalized the racist and imperial ideologies that enabled it. However, he's probably more even-handed then some of his party contemporaries and does offer consistent criticism of the Empire's classism.
This book has some merits -- it's a series of essays on specific parts of the British Empire chosen for their link to modern day conflicts and tensions. It had the potential to be an introspection on a series of interesting questions: what was the British Empire, how did it operate, who were the key characters in it's creation and maintenance, what was their common ideology and beliefs, how did those operating principles, characters, and ideas leave unique and enduring impacts in as varied corners of the globe as India, Burma, Iraq, Nigeria, Hong Kong, and the Sudan. This could all have shaped an interesting discussion on how Britiain's imperial legacy has left it's mark on our modern conflicts. And perhaps even raised the question of Britain's responsibility to help (or at least not kick those they've hurt while they are down).
Yet, that is not the book that Kwasi wrote. Instead he provides a brisk read through narrow histories -- aiming primarily to entertain. He fails to expand on any of his arguments, where he has insights they are more opinion then analysis. I did learn some new details about the colorful histories of Kashmir and Burma, but my overall assessment is that this book didn't live up to it's potential and isn't worth the read.
This book has some merits -- it's a series of essays on specific parts of the British Empire chosen for their link to modern day conflicts and tensions. It had the potential to be an introspection on a series of interesting questions: what was the British Empire, how did it operate, who were the key characters in it's creation and maintenance, what was their common ideology and beliefs, how did those operating principles, characters, and ideas leave unique and enduring impacts in as varied corners of the globe as India, Burma, Iraq, Nigeria, Hong Kong, and the Sudan. This could all have shaped an interesting discussion on how Britiain's imperial legacy has left it's mark on our modern conflicts. And perhaps even raised the question of Britain's responsibility to help (or at least not kick those they've hurt while they are down).
Yet, that is not the book that Kwasi wrote. Instead he provides a brisk read through narrow histories -- aiming primarily to entertain. He fails to expand on any of his arguments, where he has insights they are more opinion then analysis. I did learn some new details about the colorful histories of Kashmir and Burma, but my overall assessment is that this book didn't live up to it's potential and isn't worth the read.
February 20, 2023
Kwarteng's "Ghosts of Empire" is the type of history book that I really like. It approaches history from the standpoint of macro-trends, overarching lessons, and historical parallels. In this book, Kwarteng takes the long view, examining the British empire over the course of centuries, and pulling together the most important parts. The book was published in 2011, but I am just reading it in 2023, although I wish I had read it sooner.
The book title "Ghosts of Empire" is very accurate, as there are many ghosts and other skeletons in the imperial closet, that Britain has left over the centuries. Kwarteng examines the legacies of empire in several different British colonies including Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, and Hong Kong. Even examination, more sobering than the last, makes it very clear what impact colonialism has on countries and its people. As colonies broke away, from 1776 to the present, each one took its own unique path to independence. But even so, there are common threads that tie together the historical narrative. Kwarteng does an excellent job weaving together these disparate stories into a cohesive whole.
I really enjoyed Kwarteng's writing style and his ability to walk his reader through the synthesis of different ideas. I will definitely look for more of his work, as he is a very good writer. I would recommend this book to history lovers and those wishing to understand today's current world through the lens of historical context.
The book title "Ghosts of Empire" is very accurate, as there are many ghosts and other skeletons in the imperial closet, that Britain has left over the centuries. Kwarteng examines the legacies of empire in several different British colonies including Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, and Hong Kong. Even examination, more sobering than the last, makes it very clear what impact colonialism has on countries and its people. As colonies broke away, from 1776 to the present, each one took its own unique path to independence. But even so, there are common threads that tie together the historical narrative. Kwarteng does an excellent job weaving together these disparate stories into a cohesive whole.
I really enjoyed Kwarteng's writing style and his ability to walk his reader through the synthesis of different ideas. I will definitely look for more of his work, as he is a very good writer. I would recommend this book to history lovers and those wishing to understand today's current world through the lens of historical context.
January 31, 2021
Call British Empire what you want, Winston Churchill called it ‘Empire of Free Trade’, while on the opposite Joseph Chamberlain called it ‘Empire of Protectionism’. Meanwhile, Benjamin Disraeli called it ‘Empire of Truth, Liberty and Justice’, while countless other attributed the British Empire as the spreader of values such as parliamentary democracy throughout the world. However, I am most agree with the author assertion that the Empire where the Sun Never Sets was an empire of hierarchy and social status, with things such as titles of nobility and where did you get schooled determines how tall your position within society.
The author also points out another important point: that the empire was built on anarchic individualism, due to decisions of the ‘men of the spot’, not because of a coherent, long-term colonial policy. One man can have a decision, only for immediate successor to turn it back 180 degrees. These kind of decision-making caused many unintended, mostly disastrous impact throughout the Empire, especially after the British decided that it had enough and pull themselves away.
That being said, the Empire cannot be seen in extremes, neither in extremely positive nor negative lights, where it brought disasters, it also brought progress. The Empire cannot be judged with modern day equivalent, for no one had undertook the same enterprise after it had gone.
The author also points out another important point: that the empire was built on anarchic individualism, due to decisions of the ‘men of the spot’, not because of a coherent, long-term colonial policy. One man can have a decision, only for immediate successor to turn it back 180 degrees. These kind of decision-making caused many unintended, mostly disastrous impact throughout the Empire, especially after the British decided that it had enough and pull themselves away.
That being said, the Empire cannot be seen in extremes, neither in extremely positive nor negative lights, where it brought disasters, it also brought progress. The Empire cannot be judged with modern day equivalent, for no one had undertook the same enterprise after it had gone.
January 9, 2019
Ghosts of Empire has some serious points to make about the legacies of Britain's colonial empire, which he explores by examining six examples. Kwarteng argues persuasively that local administrators had relatively modest oversight, allowing them to govern with extraordinarily broad latitude. He also establishes that the lax administration often led to weak establishment of local governing bodies, which left many of Britain's former colonies ill-prepared for sovereignty in the years following WWII. But in emphasizing the role of individual governors, Kwarteng becomes distracted by their personal histories and biographies. Far too much of the book is devoted to what amounts to a series of biographical sketches of mostly unimportant and justly unremembered bureaucrats. Kwarteng's overemphasis on these anecdotal sketches undermines the balance of the book and prevents him from digging deeper into the actual histories of these former colonies. The book has a solid premise, and its premise is supported to some degree by his accounts, but it could have been far deeper and better if it had eschewed the endless digressions into personal histories.
July 21, 2019
Kwarteng's approach to the history of empire is to either forgive or outright ignore its brutality, and instead attempt to analyse where it went wrong. His argument is that there was no unifying policy across the empire, meaning that colonial governance was chaotic. This had the potential (if we were to ignore his baffling sympathy for the imperialists) to be interesting, but it rapidly becomes clear that this is little more than a hand-book of where empire went wrong and what should have been done to fix that.
None of the problems faced by those enslaved and slaughtered by the empire are dealt with in any sufficient depth, and it reads like a manual for how to get it right if colonisation were to be tried again.
The only thing that stopped me from complete exasperation with Kwarteng's inept history was the turgid prose that fails to even make an attempt at engaging the reader in the text; presumably he uses this style because if anyone actually paid attention to the book they'd immediately recognise it for the shambolic mess it is.
None of the problems faced by those enslaved and slaughtered by the empire are dealt with in any sufficient depth, and it reads like a manual for how to get it right if colonisation were to be tried again.
The only thing that stopped me from complete exasperation with Kwarteng's inept history was the turgid prose that fails to even make an attempt at engaging the reader in the text; presumably he uses this style because if anyone actually paid attention to the book they'd immediately recognise it for the shambolic mess it is.
December 11, 2018
The book is missing a lot of context of why the British were in these regions and what they wanted to achieve. The Iraq section for instance is just "oil is important for fighting wars, we need to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands." There could be a lot of specifics added that would make reading about the officials much more interesting: details on negotiations of drilling, haggling with counterparties, financing equipment, where to get the labor. Without these details on what the officials actually accomplished in their entire career, the gossip of how they interacted with local populations seems pointless. Also a lot of time is spent on talking about the schooling of these British officials, this too is pointless since we don't see how this directed their decision making in their foreign territories. Overall a detailed picture on the provenance of British officials, but what use they put their education to is not apparent.
July 4, 2020
Kwasi Kwarteng, a historian of significant scope, has written an excellent post-mortem on the British Empire by examining six specific colonial case studies: Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, and Hong Kong. He is no Empire-apologist, nor does he throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather shows it to be exactly what it was designed to be: an aristocratic empire, founded on late-Victorian ideals and celebrating “rule by the best people”.
In examining the many idiosyncratic characters with remarkably similar class and educational backgrounds who populated the colonial experiment—from the imperial hero, Lord Kitchener, to the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten—Kwarteng’s unflinching history paints a remarkably fair picture. As he says in the last line of the book: “The phenomenon of British imperial rule must be understood in its own terms.” Those terms are explained excellently in this book.
In examining the many idiosyncratic characters with remarkably similar class and educational backgrounds who populated the colonial experiment—from the imperial hero, Lord Kitchener, to the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten—Kwarteng’s unflinching history paints a remarkably fair picture. As he says in the last line of the book: “The phenomenon of British imperial rule must be understood in its own terms.” Those terms are explained excellently in this book.
June 17, 2025
A book that successfully showcases how elitist thinking of British colonial governors and civil servants starts with their education and how even the individual colleges and classes that a student undertook stood to place them within the class system that was so pervasive in British society. Even the author has gone through this same system.
I thought this gave a pretty detailed account of the differing spheres of empire it covers and the personalities of the men who were administrating them.
It is also relevant to point out the areas of the British empire that are not covered however, the myriad famines that were caused or exacerbated by British policy, the massacres of indigenous populations, and the overall racism and dehumanisation of their subject people, the use of concentration camps in South Africa and Kenya, there is brief mention of Ireland, the opium wars against china are glossed over and Britains Colonisation of Palestine is not mentioned either and nor is India despite Kashmir quite rightly getting a couple of chapters.
The author then concludes this book with a statement that the British empire was neither wholly good or bad while having given no evidence to back this statement up. I believe the author is not able to adequately distance himself from the legacy of empire given that he was a tory mp. Sad given that the facts are well referenced and the narrative structure is enticing and interesting.
I thought this gave a pretty detailed account of the differing spheres of empire it covers and the personalities of the men who were administrating them.
It is also relevant to point out the areas of the British empire that are not covered however, the myriad famines that were caused or exacerbated by British policy, the massacres of indigenous populations, and the overall racism and dehumanisation of their subject people, the use of concentration camps in South Africa and Kenya, there is brief mention of Ireland, the opium wars against china are glossed over and Britains Colonisation of Palestine is not mentioned either and nor is India despite Kashmir quite rightly getting a couple of chapters.
The author then concludes this book with a statement that the British empire was neither wholly good or bad while having given no evidence to back this statement up. I believe the author is not able to adequately distance himself from the legacy of empire given that he was a tory mp. Sad given that the facts are well referenced and the narrative structure is enticing and interesting.
September 24, 2020
An unusual book, selecting six former British colonies or protectorates (Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria and Hong Kong) with otherwise little in common to analyse whether commonality in the approach that Britain took to ruling them have resulted in legacies of difficulty today. The individual histories are excellent (those of Hong Kong and Sudan were particularly good), and the problematic legacies well explored, but the efforts to give a commonality between them is less well presented; it would appear to be more a case of different mistakes, by different people, for different reasons rather than a simple explanation centred around the class prejudices of a narrow group of upper middle-class colonial administrators with a public school and Oxbridge background.
March 24, 2023
Kwarteng reviews the role of and end of the British Empire in Iraq, Kashmir, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria,and Hong Kong. Each section provides good historical overviews and interesting biographies of the most important leaders and public figures. In each case, he argues that "individual officials wielded immense power and it was this unrestrained power that ultimately led to instability, disorder and chaos." I thought it was very interesting how many of the British Empire leaders were not so much fans of democracy as they were fans of "wielding power without having to undergo the inconvenience of winning votes." H/T to Empire podcast, which may have temporarily supplanted EconTalk as the podcast that most affects my reading list, for the recommendation.
June 22, 2017
Ignore the Date Started, it should be June 15th....this was a very disappointing book, The book was in many an apology for the gross misconduct of England in unwinding the Empire. I only three of the six or seven section, Iraq, Burma & Hong Kong and only Hong Kong resembled the truth of how the British handled the granting of independence and the fact that India was omitted is even more telling....The prejudice of civil servants and terrible planning and actions of the high administrators is made to look almost like the proper a normal reactions....the results of their actions in Iraq and Burma have left both countries in a state of disarray to this day...
February 19, 2022
Reflecting back on when I first tried to read this book, I can certainly understand why I put it down for 4 years before coming back to it now...
Although the author makes some insightful comments on the 6 chosen colony case studies, this book feels somewhat tone deaf. The main focus seems to be on 'what went wrong with the colonies' and what could have been done to fix it (it being the governing system) which certainly does put a bad taste in one's mouth considering the context.
Final thoughts: considering how hard this book is still pushed in many bookshops you would think it does a better job at giving a thorough account of the British Empire than it actually does.
Although the author makes some insightful comments on the 6 chosen colony case studies, this book feels somewhat tone deaf. The main focus seems to be on 'what went wrong with the colonies' and what could have been done to fix it (it being the governing system) which certainly does put a bad taste in one's mouth considering the context.
Final thoughts: considering how hard this book is still pushed in many bookshops you would think it does a better job at giving a thorough account of the British Empire than it actually does.
April 21, 2019
The author's main claim is that the British empire was not a planned or principled enterprise but was mainly the product of individual administrators acting on personal beliefs and prejudices, often creating lasting conflicts in the areas they administrated. The selection of areas to cover was excellent, including areas currently facing crises that are a direct result of colonialism and that continue to garner the attention and interference of Western nations including Sudan, Nigeria and the Kashmir. Not a deep study but an original and readable book.
December 27, 2016
I loved this book. The setup; covering several of the UK's historical colonies, was excellent and thoroughly enlightening. I was disappointed solely in my [pathetic] reading pace. I'd read 2 chapters in 2 days, then not touch it for a month or more. The episodes of history covered were places of which I had only the shallowest understandings. I can rank this one of my all-time favorite history books. 4/5 stars only because it wasn't quite enthralling enough to keep me regularly hooked.
March 29, 2023
Kwasi Kwarteng’s Ghosts of the Empire is an exceptional primer of Britain's legacy.
It is thoroughly researched and a balanced blend of overtly didactic couple with Kwasi’s innate ability to suss out seemingly arcane data. For example, I did not know that George Orwell was a policeman in Burma or that PM Thatcher was underwhelmed with China, unlike so many of her predecessor.
It’s accessible for the layperson, but provides enough dept to engage the academic.
TD recommends.
It is thoroughly researched and a balanced blend of overtly didactic couple with Kwasi’s innate ability to suss out seemingly arcane data. For example, I did not know that George Orwell was a policeman in Burma or that PM Thatcher was underwhelmed with China, unlike so many of her predecessor.
It’s accessible for the layperson, but provides enough dept to engage the academic.
TD recommends.
January 4, 2018
Great great book , very nuanced and unbiased view ! This books deals with the legacies of the empire in today’s world . Kashmir, Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria , Burma and Hong Kong are dealt with , each with sufficient depth and scholarship . I found the HK part a little bit of drag , the other essays / chapters are fast paced and very informative .
April 11, 2024
Outstanding. Scholarly about what happened. Insightful about the drivers of this behaviour, such as the empire being rooted in hierarchy and in a divide and conquer approach to ruling. The fallout is still visible in all countries covered, such as Nigeria and Hong Kong. Easy read, so highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews