The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire (Politically Incorrect Guides

Politically Incorrect Guides

by H.W. Crocker III, Ray Porter (Narrator)

Nothing offends liberals more than western imperialism--it is racism, sexism, and chauvinism all in one. And of course the epitome of western imperialism is the British Empire, the biggest empire the world has ever known, covering at its height a quarter of the globe's surface and ruling a quarter of the world's population. Here, bestselling author H. W. Crocker III exposes--in brawling, rambunctious style--how the British Empire was actually one of the greatest establishers and defenders of freedom in history. So strap on your pith helmet for a rollicking ride through some of history's most colorful events. The Politically Incorrect Guide (tm)to the British Empire provides a panoramic and provocative view of four hundred years of history that will delight and amuse, educate and entertain.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Politics, British Literature, India

Audio CD

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

H.W. Crocker III is the bestselling author of the prize-winning comic novel The Old Limey and several books of military history, including Triumph, Robert E. Lee on Leadership, The Politically Incorrect Guide® to the Civil War, The Politically Incorrect Guide® to the British Empire, Yanks, and Don’t Tread on Me.

His journalism has appeared in National Review, the American Spectator, the Washington Times, and many other outlets. Educated in England and California, Crocker lives on the site of a former Confederate encampment in Virginia.

Reviews

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 1 out of 5]

The PIG Guide to the British Empire advances from a false premise. Namely, that there's an informal conspiracy among academics, historians and "liberals" generally to castigate Britain for "alleged sins of racism, capitalism, and ignorant, judgmental, hypocritical Christian moralism" (3). In popular history, at least, the scales have lately swung the other way: Niall Ferguson, Lawrence James and Saul David have produced a sizable body of work celebrating British imperialism. Surely the layman is more likely to read Ferguson's Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power than academic texts on mining practices in Ceylon.

On the other hand, Ferguson and James don't argue that the Empire is faultless. They present the defensible view that Britain's actions on the world stage were generally good, highlighting its achievements while conceding the occasional atrocity and failure. Crocker goes further, arguing empire was "incontestably a good thing" (3), incapable of any wrongdoing. Indeed, he finds many of England's worst actions praiseworthy.

Let's begin with one of the Empire's blackest days: April 13, 1919. In response to earlier riots which killed five Europeans, Brigadier Reginald Dyer led 90 Indian troops to the Sikh temple in Amritsar, where a large crowd had peaceably assembled. Dyer's actions were premeditated, telling his Brigade Major "I shall be cashiered for this probably, but I've got to do it." Without warning Dyer ordered his troops to shoot directly into the crowd, maintaining a sustained fire that killed at least 379 people. Dyer later claimed that "my intention was to inflict a lesson which would have an impact throughout all India."

Amritsar provided a catalyst for Indian nationalism. Jawaharlal Nehru's autobiography describes how the Indian National Congress's disgust with Dyer pointed them towards independence. No less than Winston Churchill denounced it as "a monstrous event... which stands in singular and sinister isolation." Yet H.W. Crocker writes that "doing harsh and terrible things [like Amritsar] was sometimes necessary to keep the peace" (148). This sentence unwittingly demolishes Crocker's entire premise. If imperialism requires the periodic murder of 379 people, where lays its virtue?

Crocker evidently relishes punishing recalcitrant colonials. He deems Banastre Tarleton a man "hard not to warm to" for propagating "terror and slaughter" amongst American rebels (64-65). He gushes over British troops in the Indian Mutiny "cut[ting] through the enemy with avenging swords and Enfield rifles, erecting gibbets to hang surviving traitors" (140-141). Genocide against New Zealand's Maoris is "fun-with-muskets" (307). Even Ireland's "irresponsible" Black and Tans are justified by the actions of "charming thug" Michael Collins (90).

As a corollary, Crocker demeans any independence movement lacking instant unanimous support. He parrots the truism that only one-third of Americans wanted independence. He denounces the Easter Rising as a "squalid affair" with no popularity (89), ignoring the outcry English retaliation generated. He marvels over the rise of Indian nationalism post-1919. He discusses Kenya's Mau Mau insurgency without mentioning either the redistribution of Kikuyu land to white farmers which triggered the rising, or the concentration camps established during the "State of Emergency." If Crocker didn't view mass murder as "fun-with-muskets" he might understand cause-and-effect.

Equally instructive are Crocker's views towards Britain's subjects. Jamaicans are "Rustyfarians" and "drug-addled ghetto dwellers" (15). The Irish are "comic... shiftless, ignorant, stubborn, contumacious and cruel" (74). Irish *and* Amerindians are deemed "poor, productive and occasionally savage" (101). Educated Indians are full of "fruity, overblown rhetoric" (169). Egyptians are "oily" and "jabbering" (247). T.E. Lawrence's Arab allies "fought for no cause more elevated than pleasure and plunder" (279). Early New Zealand was populated with "cannibal Maoris and their white ruffian friends" (307). That's not to mention the post-imperial world of "United Nations bureaucrats, liberal internationalists, native kleptocrats, liberate Islamists and Third World Communists and National Socialists" (9), a combination sure to make Tories vomit.

This being a "politically incorrect" book, heroic minorities are conspicuously absent. Sorry Gertrude Bell, creating modern Iraq doesn't earn you recognition. Florence Baker, get back in the kitchen; exploring Central Africa with your husband doesn't impress Crocker. Claims that T.E. Lawrence, Charles Gordon and Lord Kitchener were gay? Mere sensationalism by "wilting, effeminate socialists" (209) like Lytton Strachey. Indians, Africans, Amerindians who fought alongside the British? Faceless crowds of colored supplicants.

Mr. Crocker imparts other astounding insights. He mocks Americans for thinking taxation "of course amounts to tyranny," ignoring the "without representation" bit (10). He laments that "the sun set on British West African sooner than it should have" (195) hence forestalling democracy, before non-ironically calling British support of Reza Khan's Iranian despotism a "solution... suitable for most foreign policy jams" (255). The Opium War was "one of Britain's most gloriously high-minded little wars... fought to establish the important principle of free trade" (310). He never explains how enforcing a narcotics monopoly constitutes "free trade," or how flooding China with opium benefited its people.

Most mendaciously, Crocker enlists anti-colonial heroes as mouthpieces for imperialism. Does Crocker *really* want Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence who elsewhere advocated "sink[ing] the whole island in the ocean," as a spokesman for England's benevolence? (Note also Jefferson's "empire of liberty" comment [34] refers to an *American* empire.) He employs pro-British quotes from Mahatma Gandhi dating from 1915 and earlier (145), as if this negates Gandhi's 30 years advocating independence. Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta indeed denounced the Mau Mau (205); he also said that "the whites must go. Africa is for the Africans."

It's a shame because there's merit to the contours of Crocker's argument. Britain's colonies did often benefit from European rule, be it through wealth, infrastructure or stable government. Yet any reasonable person realizes this isn't universally true; political liberties, wealth distribution and racial makeup varied greatly among colonies. Why was British rule in some regions peaceful and violent elsewhere? Why did some countries become thriving democracies (the US, Australia, India) while others became dictatorships (Egypt, Pakistan, Zimbabwe) or mired in internecine violence (Ireland, Israel, Cyprus)? These are good questions for thinking historians.

High Victorian jingoism isn't the answer. By all means praise Britain for combating Africa's slave trade or outlawing India's appalling Sati practice. Celebrate if you like the courage of Sir Francis Drake or Richard Burton. But you can't debate economics by labeling gunboat diplomacy "free trade." You can't proclaim the Empire's tolerance while spewing "wogs start at Calais" bigotry. You certainly can't uphold its "principles of justice, fair play and decency" (146) while lauding the Amritsar Massacre. Crocker's ghastly book unintentionally affirms the Left's worst stereotypes about imperialism.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crocker III, H. W. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire. Regnery, 2011.

There are few books that are simply fun to read. This is almost a novel (incidentally, numerous old-timey movies have been made about many of the historical players). More often than not, the British Empire expanded just because Englishmen wanted to explore because...well, why not?

As Crocker tells the tale, it’s not so much that the British Empire decided to take over and enslave native peoples. More often, the military arm of the empire moved in to protect trade routes. That is, of course, if they weren’t already invited in by warring kingdoms and tribes.

This book made me realize that there are alternatives to either globalism or nationalism. Nationalism--linguistic cultural institutions within a geographic locale--is the normal mode of being for a people. (I understand that statement would get me brought up on charges by the Gospel Coalition). Globalism is evil, but nationalism might not always be viable. Something like a Dominion Commonwealth or Empire can transcend this dialectic.

It is standard among PC advocates today that the British Empire merely exploited people and made their long-term situation worse. This is easily rebutted. America, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong (until the media and Democrats betrayed them to China) are all first-world countries. India, while perhaps not a success today, is a modern country. The British Empire brought India from dozens of warring kingdoms to a cultural, unified powerhouse.

Heroes

Lawrence of Arabia. He modeled himself as a classical warrior.

Ian Smith: if you don’t violently hate political liberalism and globalism after you read this chapter, then you are probably on some think tank's payroll. Smith had an amazing career and saw himself and his country betrayed for being more British than the British.

Charles Gordon of Khartoum: Probably had the most heroic and manly death in all of Western civilization. He held off a horde of fanatics for almost a year. When they finally breached the city he faced them with a revolver and sword.

Lessons Learned

* Whenever white liberals and Labour get involved in international race questions, they almost always make life worse for Africans.

* A Federal, constitutional monarchy, such as the one envisioned for the Transjordan, could avoid the inevitable problem facing conservatives in republics: as the population generally moves towards the cities, it is also accompanied by a liberalism in morals and politics. This is why conservatives generally lose in the long run. Democracy and elections are necessarily stacked against them. Crocker hints at, but does not develop, a possibility that a federal monarchy could channel power back to the countryside.

* On a similar note, Rhodesian president Ian Smith’s “One Man, One Vote, One Time” illustrates the failure of democracy. One man each will have one vote, but this will only last one time. Then you get dictatorship, which is exactly what happened. You cannot force feed democratic institutions on people who are neither ready for them nor really want them. What happened is that the majority elected a strongman, Robert Mugabe, into office only to do away with the liberal structures that made his rise possible. Does anyone really want to defend Zimbabwe today?

* The South Africa question is trickier. Apartheid wasn’t a British deal, yet Britain couldn’t realistically keep South Africa as a colony in the long run. The Afrikaaners were wrong for what they did. On the other hand, from a liberal point of view, it’s hard to explain why Africans nonetheless migrated to South Africa rather than any other sub-Saharan country.

* He points out how Ghandi supported the British Empire. (Crocker could have scored more points against PCs by documenting Ghandi’s racism towards Africans.)

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

The British Empire has never wanted for defenders. For centuries men in uniform spent their careers and even their lives to preserve its existence, while others confined their sacrifice to the expenditure of ink. H. W. Crocker III is in the latter category, and he undertakes his task at an inopportune time. Today the British “Empire” is a sad remnant of its former self, consisting of little more than some isolated leftovers that are maintained at considerable expense either out of nostalgia for past greatness or simply because nobody else wants them. When they do go, it will undoubtedly be with a whimper rather than a bang.

Yet so long as these isolated patches still fly the Union Jack, Crocker will continue to take heart. “The British Empire still exists, thank goodness,” he declares at the start of his paean to it, adding that it was “incontestably a good thing.” Sure, he admits, it was built through conquest of other people, it arbitrarily established boundaries to suit their interests, and it was responsible for a “portion” of the slave trade, but all of this in his view is a small price to pay for introducing to subjugated populations “their ideas about the rule of law, liberty, and parliamentary self-government,” as well as British sports and their concept of fair play. I’m sure he would have added warm beer to the list if he had a taste for it.

All of this, of course, is based on a host of assumptions, all of which go unaddressed. Foremost among them is that none of things would exist in the world but for the British, which would have come as quite a surprise to all those places in the world that enjoyed the rule of law, organized games, and ideas of fairness long before the British showed up on their lands to “introduce” them. And of course, introducing them was far from the goal of the empire in the first place, as Crocker reluctantly acknowledges before moving on quickly to the more fun parts of his tale. For someone who likes to bang on throughout the book about “Bolshies” and other right-wing boogeymen, he certainly doesn’t like to spend much effort defending the profit-seeking goals of the empire that merited their attacks on it.

The second assumption is that all of the British Empire’s wonderful contributions to the world could only have been brought to it through conquest and subjugation. Crocker certainly had no shortage of opportunities to address this throughout the book, as the bulk of its pages are devoted to a “boys’ own” retelling of the conquest of empire, complete with entire chapters offering potted biographies of some of the most famous conquerors. It’s an approach that conveniently skips past any examination of the conquered, which evidently is necessary for Crocker to do to construct his claims for the “incontestable” goodness of the empire. After all, what do their lives matter when weighed against the introduction of tennis to the survivors?

And this gets to the biggest assumption of all in Crocker’s book, which is that British rule was incomparably superior to what preceded it, and that any positive aspects of independence was because of their legacy. This he argues through his region-by-region examination of the British Empire, which provides a curated selection of the highlights that support his arguments. Yet even in his presentation of his examples he excludes important details in order to make his case. Perhaps the best example of this is his chapter on America’s own period as an imperial possession, which he presents as largely a laissez-faire rule during its existence. Of course, it’s easy enough to declare that “there were no shackles on the Americans” if one ignores the effort by James II to introduce the Dominion of New England, an attempt to impose centralized administrative control that was only thwarted by the Glorious Revolution and William III’s focus on his wars with France. Exclusion of this episode is minor, though, compared to Crocker’s glossing over of the events leading to the American Revolution (or, as the British and Crocker prefer to call it, the American War of Independence), which he rushes through in a paragraph that only succeeds in conveying a sense that the author feels that the wrong side won.

Crocker’s belief in the ingratitude of imperial subjects is even greater when it comes to the Irish. As he presents it, the debt owed by the Irish to the English is vast, whereas the debt owed by the English to the Irish is negligible (with the author even pointedly reassigning any credit for Ireland’s contribution to medieval civilization to the Catholic Church). Tinted as it is by his use of rosiest of rose-colored glasses, Crocker’s portrait of Britain’s rule over the Emerald Isle is so discolored as to be unrecognizable. His celebration of the English for introducing “law and order” during the Middle Ages, as well as a parliament, leaves out that these were employed to extend English control at the expense of the Irish themselves. His summary of the Act of Union, which he presents as a failure due to the “charismatic” distractions of Daniel O’Connell, leaves out that his appeal was directly tied to the failure of the British to deliver on their promises of Catholic emancipation after the act’s passage. The “hazard” of the Irish potato famine leaves out that the tragedy was a consequence of the Irish peasantry’s British-imposed dependence on the crop. And so on. It is only thanks to such omissions that Crocker’s view of an ungrateful Ireland casting off British rule has any traction, and even he is forced to acknowledge without elaboration that by the end it was only maintained in the empire’s “second capital” by British soldiers patrolling in armored cars.

By this point perhaps the greatest flaw in Crocker’s argument is obvious, which is that among the greatest grievances of imperial subjects was that those concepts of “the rule of law, liberty, and parliamentary self-government” which he is so eager to credit the British Empire for spreading were in fact denied to them by the British throughout most of the empire’s existence. Here Crocker relies upon his reader’s ignorance of the details, such as the role the perceived loss of sovereignty played in motivating the American Revolution, or that the Irish parliament represented the Anglo-Irish minority rather than the Gaelic majority. This distortion only gets worse as he moves on to the Asian and African parts of the empire, as he ignores completely the British resistance to introducing rights and representative self-government whenever they feared it might become an impediment to their control. Claiming that “British policy was to lead India to becoming a self-governing dominion” omits that such a policy came only after a half-century of agitation by Indian activists and broken promises on the part of the British, and even then was hedged with provisions that allowed the British to rescind self-government whenever they decided it was necessary. And his description of British rule in Africa as a demonstration of “their usual facility for development, civilization, and self-rule” is an outright howler that requires complete ignorance of the structures of local governance imposed by the British in those colonies and the restriction of voting to white settlers to be believed.

It is this level of intellectual dishonesty that undermines Crocker’s effort to make a positive case for the British Empire. Only by providing the most superficial of overviews of British rule with cherry-picked examples to support his interpretation is it even remotely possible for him to make such a claim in the first place. And if the best defense that can be offered for events such as the use of torture by British security forces during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya that “some” of the accounts have been “hysterically exaggerated” while excusing the rest as being unauthorized, then the reader is well within their rights as to question the supposed incontestability of the empire as a “good thing.” If there is argument to be made that in the end the contributions of the British empire were more positive than negative, it certainly isn’t to be found in this lazy and misleading book.

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Since I was at the Embassy of Japan to do my visa on Monday, I decided to stop by my aunt's house. And then came back with 4 books (and I have to return them before I leave). One of them is this one - The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire.

Now, Singapore was once a British Colony, and then WWII happened, after which, most people decided that they didn't want to work for the British anymore and the struggle for Independence began. Right now, with all our colonial hang-ups, we tend to have two ways of looking at the ang mohs (a slang that includes all white people): as infallible people or as, well, it's not so nice to articulate. But generally, the British Empire isn't seen as such a good thing, and we do value our independence dearly.

Hence, the political incorrectness of this book. I don't know how many people realise this (it took me a few years), but most history books are biased. And no, I'm not just talking about the Japanese history textbook case. Most historians write from a certain perspective (e.g. revisionist, the only term I can remember), and they have different ways of interpreting certain historical events. So in this book, expect an overwhelmingly positive interpretation of the events that occurred during the British Empire.

It's not very easy to separate your emotional bias from your writing. Adjectives or other descriptive words are bound to exist and they will colour the interpretation of events. I suppose the only possible way to be objective is to just study dates and numbers. But really, history is more interesting when you consider things like "so who was right? Was this good for ____?" and so on and so forth. I suppose that the advantage of the title is that it prepares the reader for the bias of the book. And one of the things I can't stand in non-fiction is if a book that has a strong bias tries to masquerade itself as objective (hypocrisy never wins respect).

The book is entertaining and well-written. It's divided into eight sections according to the different territories. Each section begins with an overview of the territory and then subsequent chapter examines some key/significant people (essentially, mini-biographies), complete with quotes and sidebars.

You may feel that the book is selective in facts (well, it has too, or it'll be too long) or that it shouldn't support the colonialists so ardently. In that case, since it disagrees with your sensibilities, don't bother reading it, why anger yourself on purpose? But if you're looking for a book that prevents a rather different view of the empire, perhaps to get a more objective view, you really should give this book a try.

(First posted at my Inside the mind of a Bibliophile)



As a side note, the book also recommends plenty of movies and books that feature this 'politically incorrect' view, so if you're doing research, you could use this as a sort of 'launch pad'.

[Tariq Mahmood · Rating 4 out of 5]

The writer is an unapologetic imperialist of a bygone era. Or is it really bygone? The story and the achievement of the British people in colonising and controlling people across the globe is indeed a proud achievement. An event which must be hard for the British to ignore, especially when imperialism is considered these days to be a selfish and bullish act. And I agree with the writer, that British imperialism was built by certain dynamic individuals who operated with impunity with limited control and who were able to achieve great gains. The resulting kingdom worked as long as imperialism was in fashion, but once the definition of imperialism changed for the worst, it was relinquished rather hurriedly, and that hurried and ungainly exit is something which the writer has glossed over. The problem with British Imperialism or any imperialism is that there is no real concept of a soft handover among different races. By soft handovers, I mean Canada and Australia as opposed to Nigeria or India.

[Rick Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agreed with the main thesis of the book, that the British Empire was a net good for the world and that British folks shouldn't apologize for it. I didn't think the approach of organizng the book as a series of short biographical sketches was was compelling as a straighforward chronological narrative would have been.

[Alejandro Heracles al-Mu'minin · Rating 2 out of 5]

With such a wide timespan any attempt at a history of the British Empire would be quite the daunting task. This book takes you through the ages glorifying every exploit the Empire set out to. It gives a decent framing of events but as usual is incredibly biased.

I think the author attempted to offended every possible reader of this book. Since the history is so extensive he has a wide palate of all cultures to attack and doesn't hold back. Most notable is that while this book was written in 2011 he cites an author as James Morris, obviously referring to Jan Morris who changed their name in 1974.

[Maureen · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a dud - very selective in what it presented, with the overall message that the British Empire was a godsend to the world.

[Mary Overton]

Alas, I read this for a book club. Or at least I read half of it. Never finished, because I spent too much time going to other sources for accurate accounts of events, thus learning more history but in a back-door way. Crocker writes for readers who like their history romantically delusional and full of plucky, grown-up boys busy with the White Man's Burden:

"... the British Empire, for all its occasional missteps and outrages [sic], was a global, Shakespearean stage on which Britons could take part in a glorious adventure, playing Hotspur to headhunters and Henry V to Hottentots. If that sounds boyish, it is meant to, because the Empire was boyish; it trained boys to its tasks in schools of self-denial, cold dirty baths, bad food, long runs, stiff upper lips, the imperial languages of Greek and Latin, 'playing the game,' and embracing the ideal of service. It was an advanced form of commercial, military, and political outdoor recreation for Boy Scouts (themselves a creation of the British Empire). Young men, straight out of school, could find themselves in distant lands acting as lawgivers to primitive tribes and dangerous brigands; they were men of conservative sentiments, liberal ideals, and boyish pluck....
"Alas that day [when the British Empire is supplanted] is here, ushered in by United Nations bureaucrats, liberal internationalists, native kleptocrats, liberated Islamists, and Third World Communists and National Socialists, all of whom emerged as Europe's empires retreated. The retreat of the British Empire was not progress - either for Western Civilization or in many cases for the countries achieving independence. .... Many a Briton thought it his duty, in the words of the scholars Lewis H. Gann and Peter Duignan, 'to carry civilization, humanity, peace, good government, and Christianity to the ends of the earth.' That duty still exists for those who want it, and perhaps it would repay our study to see how Britain's imperialists actually did it." pp. 8-11

Here Crocker explains the natural revulsion of proper Englishmen to the "aboriginal Irish":
"As for the native Irish, they were regarded as the American settlers later regarded Indians - the farther away one was from them, the more sympathetic one might be to their plight; the closer one was, the more one took the view that pushing these poor, unproductive, and occasionally savage people out of the way was a simple act of advancing civilization." pg. 101

[Clay Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Learned a lot about the British Empire.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a great shame that the audiobook cd I was listening to skipped at times, as this is a greatly entertaining and provocative book to listen to, and one that is worthy of a read for fair-minded individuals. To be sure, those who are most in need of listening to this book to hear of the positive side of British imperialism are likely to be the most close-minded about its contents, and those readers that take the author’s comments in a praiseworthy way at face value will likely be confirmed in their own existing prejudices. Neither reply to this book, either knee-jerk acceptance or knee-jerk opposition, is a productive response, as this book is a well-crafted one that is worthy of being taken seriously, but it is sufficiently imperfect that it cannot be taken uncritically. If this is not a likely response to this book for many readers, that is to be regretted, but all the same it does not make the book any less enjoyable for those who are interested in the British Empire.

In terms of its organization and structure, this book is organized in a topical fashion. The book explores the British Empire by region, in a highly selective manner, focusing on a few larger or more significant colonies, ignoring wholesale smaller colonies beyond brief mentions, and focusing on political and military leaders among the empire in various regions to the exclusion of most cultural figures, with the notable exception of Rudyard Kipling. The author wades into debates about the origins of the American Revolution [1], shows some remarkable hostility towards Israeli Jews, even when they were on the same side as Israel as in 1956 in the Suez War, and generally lives up to his aims of writing in a politically incorrect way, basically taking the thesis of Rhodesia’s breakaway leader Ian Smith at face value in the discussion of that colony, for example. The author, somewhat puzzlingly, does not include any of Britain’s Antarctic explorations or many of the smaller islands of the British Empire, or the shameful matter of Diego Garcia, into his account at all, making this book a tour of the highlights and most shocking aspects of empire rather than a systematic and thorough account.

Ultimately, given the somewhat superficial nature of this account, much of how a reader is likely to appreciate this book or not depends on the reader’s assumptions and larger worldview. To the extent that the reader has a fondness for political and military history, a willingness to countenance or even to express paternalistic sentiments towards backwards cultures, and a hostility to naïve idealism and left-wing social experimentation in general, the reader will find much to appreciate and enjoy in this book. That said, those readers who are hostile to the author’s approach and worldview are likely not to recognize the somewhat skewed but at least partially accurate insights this book presents. In the final analysis, this is the sort of book one reads and quotes from if one wants to start a quarrel, contains some intriguing choices for books and movies that anti-imperialists do not want the reader to enjoy, some of which are quite worthy of their own examination, and the high point of the book is to be found in its thoughtful and sympathetic biographical sketches. If the book is an imperfect one, it is still worth grappling with, especially if one believes that the flawed British Empire was still far better than the benighted fate of much of the former empire in the decades after independence. Is it better to live in basic peace and safety while unfree or to live disastrously unsuccessfully while free? That is the question.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accessible romp through imperial history from an American point-of-view. It will certainly make you revise some of those negative assumptions you had about empire. It doesn't excuse any misdemeanors, but does reveal how the British empire improved the infrastructure of many countries and was popular with many (often the majority) of natives. Imperialists also addressed customs of appalling cruelty such as Sati in India and saw off oppressors such as the Mugals.

The inference I had when finishing this book is that there was too much political pressure for the Brits to leave some countries too soon. A revisionist look at Gandhi implies that, despite being a man of peace, he inspired violence by resisting the Brits too soon leading to the tragic blunder of Indian partition. He also revises the leadership of Rhodesia by Ian Smith: a man who rightly predicted that premature independence would lead to a tribal election of an Autocrat for life, and the destruction of infrastructure.

A few niggles: This is a whistle-stop tour, so it is frustrating if you find a particular subject interesting enough to linger on. An up-to-date (and scholarly) 'Further reading' section would be nice. The author also writes like he's swallowed the thesaurus at times which is out of sync with the popular genre of the book. It's also a bit annoying when factual text boxes keep interrupting the narrative - especially on a Kindle where the boxes are cut in half between pages.

Overall, a brilliant read which reminded me that nothing and no one can be seen in black and white.

[cool breeze · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well written sympathetic overview of British Imperial history. The storytelling is not quite as good as Peter Hopkirk or Alan Moorehead at their best, but it is more comprehensive in its sweep and the number of people covered. Like most books in the Politically Incorrect Guide series, it does not attempt to be all-inclusive, but pays particular attention to those matters that politically correct historians have largely ignored or gotten wrong.

Notable figures who get their own chapters are Drake, Morgan, Cornwallis, Raleigh, the Duke of Wellington, Napier, Clive, Curzon, Mountbatten, Gordon, Kitchener, Ian Smith, Burton, Lawrence, Glubb, Raffles, Brooke, Blamey, Templer and Churchill. Many other figures get a briefer mention along the way. The writing is lively and it is enjoyable reading.

[Mirjam · Rating 1 out of 5]

Saying the British Empire is good because it "gave us" the US is so laughably stupid I don't even know how to respond to it. The fuck kind of worms have been eating your brain, man?

[Arjun · Rating 3 out of 5]

"1000 English men routed 55000 nawab's army"? Do you even read what you write? And who will mention that 1/3rd of Nawab's army was bought by Clive before the war began? Or the fact that Clive was fighting a losing battle till rain decide to intervene? "Routed" my ass.

When I saw the title i thought it would be funny. Turns out it was just RIDICULOUS!
And not in a good way.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting examples, but does not present even a semblance of a balanced argument.

[Lee]

A shamelessly one-sided celebration of an empire that deserves to be celebrated at least as much as any other empire the world has ever seen. It's not the book to read for nuanced historical analysis, but if you're a proud Anglophile, you may find it an entertaining read.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I want to say that this book was a fun read. Unfortunately, what started out as humorous over time became tedious. The primary premise of this book is that the British Empire, on the balance, did far more good than evil for the world at large. I will not argue with that one bit. However, I do think he too flippantly glosses over or downright ignores some of the evil that was committed under the banner of British Colonialism and Empire.

On the front end of this book, I absolutely love how he caricatures the late 18th century Americans as a group of spoiled, ungrateful children. "They cried out against the injustice of being taxed by England, but then proceeded to tax themselves at a far higher rate." The author chooses to pretend blissful ignorance to the fact it wasn't the taxation but rather "taxation without representation" that they rebelled against.

Throughout the book, you can never if he is joking or simply wrong. When he displays his bias against any and all Irish barbarians, he is obviously joking. But his later statements that come across as nearly anti-semitic and his comments of meddling missionaries who were interfering with the attempts of well-meaning British rulers to benefit the local people... He is joking. He's got to be joking, right? The author can't really be that stupid, can he? It is at points like these where the attempts to be humorously "politically incorrect" interfere with what would have otherwise been a great, fun, and highly readable history of the British Empire.

This is the weakness of this book. The strength is the collection of biographical sketches of great men of the British Empire. Or perhaps I should not say great but rather influential. Some of these men could hardly be called "great" in what they did, what they believed, or in how they lived. Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor) immediately comes to mind.

In the end, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone not already familiar with world history from the 18th through to the mid 20th century. There are better books to serve as introductions I am sure. To someone who is more knowledgable, who would be able to separate the fact from fiction presented here, this book would serve as a fun refresher.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is as swashbuckling as the empire it do brilliantly describes and defends! With chapters on key characters (especially the most adventurous one like Drake and Clive), as well as regions and subcontinents, he adds a romantic element to his book on a truly romantic empire.

Also, as an Irishman from the Unionist community I really appreciated his treatment of Ireland. Like the South (in the US), our story is not so popular, and Hollywood in particular prefers the false romantic version of the bloody Republicans.

Loved it. One of my favourites in the PIG guides!

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

So this was my first time diving into a historical text like this, not written from the perspective of someone actually there and involved. Therefore I wasn't expecting it to be so opinionated.

And while the subject matter could be a bit dry at time it was interesting to read about the Empire in a positive light compared to today's aggressive negative rhetoric.



1 Star reviews from people being angry about the author's opinion is also really good banter.

[Darjeeling · Rating 5 out of 5]

Surprisingly fair and even handed. Tells the story of the British empire through it's legends, including Lawrence of Arabia, Winston Churchill, Sir Francis Drake, Wellington, Captain Cook, and many more. Shows these legendary figures warts and all, listing their mistakes, flaws, and defeats, as well as their achievements, victories, and virtues.

[Giorgina King · Rating 3 out of 5]

I strongly believe in reading things with which I disagree. Writing Big History is incredibly difficult, but despite knowing this I struggled with the language of this book. The empire comes across as a cunning but naive/hapless entity, it cherry picks responsibilities for septic atrocities without ownership for the gaping wound that the empire has been (and continues to be) to humanity.

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

A breezy look at a worthy topic

Published in 2011 by Regnery Publishing, Inc.
394 pages including extensive notes and an index.

Generally intended as an antidote to the slanted education that many of us have received, the Politically Incorrect Guide (P.I.G.) series is an entertaining series loosely based on the "Idiots Guide..." and the "Dummies..." books.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire is an immensely readable look at the British Empire - it's origins, its ideals, its controversies and its rather abrupt ending after World War II. The format of the book is pretty simple. Crocker picks an area of the British Empire and than gives a brief (15-25 pages) history of the Empire in that part of the world, from beginning to end. Then, he focuses on several of the personalities mentioned in the brief history with biographies that go into greater detail.

Those personalities are way more interesting than bland descriptions of policy edicts issued from the Lord such-and-such from the Ministry of This-and-that. The focus on the men that made the Empire makes this an interesting book from one end to the other...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...

[Joni Janice Mielke · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Audiobook Review*

Once again, the fact that this was read by a brilliant narrator whom I had listened to once before, counted for quite a bit in my choosing to listen to this book. The other factor was the subject matter. We're living in a time of scrutiny, wherein concepts, attitudes, beliefs and actions are judged on a scale of political correctness. The course of history, and the people who stood out (for good or for ill) in the course of events, are likewise judged through the lens of our present day understanding. This book brings a refreshing, not to mention tongue-in-cheek, angle on the very same people who have not always come away with a clean rep. This is not to say that this version of events is without bias - almost no mention is made of Lord Kitchener's scorched earth policy and implementation of the world's first concentration camps in South Africa - but I have the feeling the author got a lot right, too. These are not popular opinions and these aren't points that I would recommend throwing out into the ether, but if readers are interested in (and open to) alternative viewpoints, this book and the series it forms a part of would be an excellent starting point.

[Reza Amiri Praramadhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since most of the time The British Empire was portrayed as a big, greedy, if not evil, entity, it is refreshing to read this book, in which the author argued that as an "Empire in which the sun has never set", the British Empire undoubtedly spread its values such as westminster parliament, liberal democracy, british gentlemanship and its stiff upper lip around the world, from United States, to its tiny outpost such as Falklands. This book is filled with people who stood, fought and died for British imperialism, men such Sir Walter Raleigh, James Clive, Lord Curzon, and of course, the good old Winston "Winnie" Churchill himself, who fought so hard to keep British empire intact only to saw it dismantled by immediate Labour successor.

[Matthew Dambro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful in your face rendition of the British Empire. H. W. Crocker is an excellent historian who shatters the PC liberal white guilt over the idea of Empire and the British one in particular. The stories are accurate and tongue in cheek enough to raise a laugh on almost every page. His point is well taken that but for the British Empire; the third world would be even more deeply mired in savagery, corruption and tyranny.

[Billy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not truly a history, but a spirited unapologetic defense of the British Empire. This is more a review of the various regions that the British controlled with the history generally told through chapters that focused on the exploits of a notable Briton like Clive or Gordon or Wellington.

Very entertaining, but as I said not a true history.

[Susan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Got more than half way through but it kept losing my attention . . . history just seems to be about wars and the "major generals" who think so much of themselves . . . yawn. Is there nothing else going on in the empire? Men and their wars I sick of it!

[Dane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a corker of a read. Very fun and informative. Makes you want to gather a ship and crew and sail off to relive the adventures of the British Empire.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyable. Kind of a story of the great British leaders and the good work they did.