Empireworld: How British Imperialism Has Shaped the Globe

by Sathnam Sanghera, Unknown Author

In his ground-breaking new book, Sathnam Sanghera traces the legacies of British empire around the world.

2.6 billion people are inhabitants of former British colonies.

The empire's influence upon the quarter of the planet it occupied, and its gravitational influence upon the world outside it, has been from the spread of Christianity by missionaries, to nearly 1 in 3 driving on the left side of the road, to the origins of international law. Yet Britain's idea of its imperial history and the world's experience of it are two very different things. ­

With an inimitable combination of wit, political insight and personal honesty, the award-winning author and journalist explores the international legacies of British empire – from the creation of tea plantations across the globe, to environmental destruction, conservation, and the imperial connotations of Royal tours.

His journey takes him from Barbados and Mauritius to India and Nigeria and beyond. In doing so, Sanghera demonstrates just how deeply British imperialism is baked into our world.

And why it’s time Britain was finally honest with itself about empire.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, British Literature, World History, Race

Paperback

First published January 25, 2024

About the author

Sathnam Sanghera was born to Punjabi parents in the West Midlands in 1976, attended Wolverhampton Grammar School and graduated from Christ’s College, Cambridge with a first class degree in English Language and Literature in 1998. Before becoming a writer he (among other things) worked at a burger chain, a hospital laundry, a market research firm, a sewing factory and a literacy project in New York.

Between 1998 and 2006 he was at The Financial Times, where he worked (variously) as a news reporter in the UK and the US, specialised in writing about the media industries, worked across the paper as Chief Feature Writer, and wrote an award-winning weekly business column. Sathnam joined The Times as a columnist and feature writer in 2007, reviews cars for Management Today and has presented a number of radio documentaries for the BBC.

Sathnam’s first book, The Boy With The Topknot: A Memoir of Love, Secrets and Lies in Wolverhampton, was shortlisted for the 2008 Costa Biography Award, the 2009 PEN/Ackerley Prize and named 2009 Mind Book of the Year. His novel, Marriage Material, has been shortlisted for a 2014 South Bank Sky Arts Award and a 2013 Costa Book Award, been longlisted for the 2014 Desmond Elliot Prize, picked by The Sunday Times, The Observer and Metro as one of the novels of 2013, and is being developed as a multi-part TV drama by Kudos.

He has won numerous prizes for his journalism, including Article of the Year in the 2005 Management Today Writing Awards, Newspaper Feature of the Year in the 2005 Workworld Media Awards, HR Journalist of the Year in the 2006 and 2009 Watson Wyatt Awards for Excellence and the accolade of Young Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards in 2002.

He was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Letters for services to journalism by The University of Wolverhampton in September 2009 and a President’s Medal by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2010, while GQ Magazine named him as one of “The Men of Next 25 years” in 2013, with writer Jonathan Coe saying that “whether he’s writing autobiography or fiction, Sathnam is busy carving out his own literary niche – in the multicultural British Midlands – which he explores with incredible grace, generosity and humour”.

The Boy With The Topknot, was originally published by Penguin in hardback as If You Don’t Know Me By Now. He is trustee and board chair for Creative Access, a charity which helps find internships in the creative industries for talented young people from under-represented backgrounds. He lives in London.

Reviews

[Andy Helliwell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved Empireland but I did half wonder whether there was anything new to be said on the subject of Britain's imperial legacy, especially having just read Matthew Parker's superb "One Fine Day". I needn't have worried - Sathnam Sanghera has produced a very thoroughly researched but beautifully written book which makes a very well-argued case for (finally) leaving behind the balance-sheet approach to imperial history and (finally) reckoning with it in a dialogue with the victims/beneficiaries rather than the increasingly inane monologue precipitated by the dreaded "culture wars". I thought it was superb.

[Rohan Fernando · Rating 2 out of 5]

The legacy of the British Empire is highly controversial and covers a wide canvass and Empireworld gives valuable insights into some aspects of the subject. Mr Sanghera includes the period of British Rule and the legacy for the former colonies after independence. Mr Sanghera’s approach to the subject raises some concerns. He is right to say that the positive legacies and negative legacies cannot be balanced but they must both be discussed. Though there are about 750 references in his bibliography, only a handful, about five, are publications written by knowledgeable members of the local population (politicians, civil servants, academics, journalists etc.) who actually lived in the colonies during British Rule and possibly also in the immediate decades after independence. These individuals had first-hand knowledge of life under the British and the medium-term legacy of the colonial period after independence. He instead relies on modern historians whose views are highly politicised. In Britain today a small proportion are Empire loyalists who underplay the negative aspects and a large proportion of are deeply antagonist towards it and find it difficult to acknowledge that there were any benefits for the colonies at all. Mr Sanghera has taken on the role of acting as umpire but, given in practically every page Mr Sanghera is outraged by some evil perpetrated by the British, his qualifications for acting as honest broker seems debatable. His ‘nuanced approach’ seems to give full vent to all the negative aspects and only mention positive ones in a limited, qualified and begrudging manner.

The Introduction, which covers the extent to which the British Empire still affects the world is thorough. He gives many valuable insights into the topic with a combination of wit and humour. The book is peppered with many fascinating nuggets of information, especially, in the chapter on Useful Plants. He is right to describe the horrors of slavery but he does not mention that the colonial authorities improved access to healthcare and education for the freed black population and began to give them the vote after 1870. By independence Barbados had a respected parliament, civil service and courts, nearly 200 schools, a campus of the University of the West Indies and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The sound state of the country was described by the new government in the book ‘Barbados – an independent nation’. All the Caribbean countries have built on the foundations they inherited at independence and today they are successful countries with some of the highest per capita incomes, literacy rates and life expectancies in the developing world. The wholesome living conditions in Barbados have resulted in the island being one of the few countries in the developing world containing a high proportion of centenarians. However, with the exception of Costa Rica, the non-Commonwealth countries in the region are communist states, dictatorships, states blighted by battles between brutal governments and drug barons and those blighted by terrorism. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people fleeing these countries and enduring considerable hardships to get to the USA. Hardly any of them is from a Commonwealth country in the region. A comparison of the Commonwealth countries and non-Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and Central America demonstrates clearly the beneficial legacies of the Empire.

Mr Sanghera is right to describe the appalling treatment of indentured labourers in Mauritius. But he does not mention that a Royal Commission was appointed in 1872 to look into their treatment and following their report in 1875 there were modest improvements in their conditions. A law was passed in 1878 giving the power to the government to remove labourers from bad estates. Today, Mauritius is one of the most successful countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a stable democracy, with sound institutions (inherited at independence) and has one of the highest per capita incomes in sub-Saharan Africa. One reason for its success is the large proportion of entrepreneurial and educated Indians in the country. Though there are some ethnic tensions, the Mauritians have addressed these issues without undue violence and Mauritius today is the highest ranked African country in the Global Peace Index. Indeed other Commonwealth countries large numbers of Indians such as the Seychelles, Trinidad and Malaysia are also successful countries.

Mr Sanghera’s judgement on the British role in introducing the Rule of Law in the colonies with his ‘nuanced approach’ is equivocal. India does not share his diffidence. India commemorated the centenaries and 150th anniversaries of the establishment of the High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in 1962 and 2012. The book published for the Bombay centenary noted: ‘Of the things of abiding value, which the British brought into this country, the system devised by them for the administration of law and justice must be regarded their greatest contribution’. He is equally equivocal about the British role in introducing parliamentary democracy in its colonies. He has not noticed that, of the 210 or so countries in the world, about 90 have some measure of democracy, with the largest group being the 50 or so countries in the Commonwealth. Unlike Mr Sanghera, India readily acknowledged the introduction of parliamentary democracy in 1921 with five events in 2021. In all of them credit was given to the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1918). Vice-President Naidu wrote an article in the Hindustan Times on the 10 Feb 2021 entitled ‘Dream of the Indian Republic’ commemorating the inauguration of their first parliament by the Duke of Connaught on the 9 Feb 1921. Mr Sanghera seems to be unaware of the events in 1921 and 2021.

Other omissions include the discussion of the British role in introducing hospitals, universities, medical colleges, public libraries, town halls, museums, railways, modern roads, survey departments, post offices, modern banking and tourist industries. India has regularly commemorated their anniversaries. For example, they commemorated the centenaries and 150th year anniversaries of the railways in 1953 and 2002, High Courts in 1962 and 2012 and modern universities in 1958 and 2008. Though the book does contain useful insights on some topics, these serious omissions undermine the value of the book for those wishing to obtain a broad understanding of the legacy of the British Empire.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

British Empire or Mordor


I have very little patience for books without nuance. I have a lot of problems with the book but my patience wore out when I read this:
Meanwhile, in what is now Nigeria, pre-colonial Igbo
communities ran a flexible gender system, with gender-neutral pronouns
and male roles open to certain women through the phenomena of nhanye
(‘male daughters’) and igba ohu (‘female husbands’).

In a nuanced book, there is nothing wrong with this description, but this author is trying to use something he does not understand to beat the British empire to death. Both the author and the person he quotes here (https://gal-dem.com/colonialism-niger...) are being careless with their terms. No, the pre-colonial ibo people did not have a flexible gender system. Not in any sense close to what someone living in the west today would understand. They were heavily patriarchal and inflexible , even more so than the British Empire which supposedly imposed transphobia on them. The fact that a language does not have gendered pronouns or inflection does not mean they were gender-flexible.

This is the kind of carelessness you'd encounter in a book about a sensitive historical topic not written by a historian.
These reckless nuanceless views, coupled with the fact that the author just can't get out of the way of his own writing make this a book you should go ahead and skip. And yes, I'm from a nation that was formerly colonized by Britain and even I don't see it as the Mordor the author tries to paint it as

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

I confess to not finishing this. My patience finally snapped in chapter 5 where the author’s diatribe against the British Empire turns its attention to how the imperial project imposed homophobic legislation on large swathes of the world and therefore Britain is to blame for the continuing criminalisation of homosexuality in countries that have been independent of us for 80 years or more.
I accept that there is a need to discuss the legacy of the British Empire and I see the logic of developing countries seeking reparations from plantation owning families who were able to amass great wealth on the back of slavery, but Sathnam wants us all to wallow in collective guilt. He targets Kew Gardens for indiscriminate meddling with crops and agriculture around the world; Live Aid and Comic Relief get it in the neck for fostering white saviour stereotypes and paternalistic attitudes to the Third World. No mention of the money raised and the lives saved, but plenty on the atrocious lyrics of’Do they know it’s Christmas?’
A more balanced and nuanced analysis would have been appreciated.

[Christopher L. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have just read this book after reading Empireland, which I thought was outstanding. Sadly, Empireworld is not in the same league. There are flashes of the evenhanded prose and considered thinking we all benefitted from in Mr. Sanghera’s previous work, but this book is too subjective in its conclusions, which is perhaps reflective of the author’s left leaning politics and is where his journalistic background ultimately lets him down.

I do completely agree with Mr. Sanghera’s idea that simply placing the good and the bad of Empire into two separate baskets on some sort of measuring scale is a nonsense. However, by the same token, using comparative analysis is unavoidable when discussing what are incredibly nuanced issues.

Take slavery for instance – Slavery was undeniably appalling, and the British nation needs to face up to its role in it - I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Sanghera on this. However, when discussing this issue, as complete context as possible needs to be provided.

While one simply cannot in all good conscience say anything positive about Britain’s role in it, slavery itself was undeniably part of the human condition for many millennia and, at the time of the Atlantic Slave Trade, had been an economic norm for thousands of years.

A core problem with the author’s base case assumptions around this issue is the critical failure to mention slavery’s monumental duration or its global pervasiveness prior to or during the time of the British Empire - all empires proceeding it and a good few after it continued to employ slavery. This is undeniable historical fact.

So then, if slavery’s place in almost the entirety of human history is brought into the argument it is extremely difficult to deny that the abolition of slavery by arguably the largest empire ever seen was anything but a monumental moment for the human condition.

The motives behind that abolition, its implementation and what happened next can and should be a matter for debate. However, Britain’s abolition of slavery across such a vast swathe of the world was a unique event in a way that Britain’s participation in slavery was not. Even the greatest anti-imperialist ought to be able to see that, but sadly none of this nuance and context is discussed in Empireworld - Instead one comes away thinking that the British Empire perpetrated the crime of slavery almost single handedly and that abolition by the leading global empire of the age was not the redeeming moment for mankind that it actually was.

Mr Sanghera also discusses the Empire’s impact on Nigeria. It is fair to say that the slave trade was mightily disruptive in West Africa but there is a conversation to be had about how the West African peoples themselves perpetrated it – one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the sub-Sahara slave trade was even larger than the Atlantic. To deny or minimalise West African involvement when these societies were operating independently from colonists for so long is to deny them agency in their own history, which is after all, what Mr. Sanghera accuses colonialism of ultimately doing.

The way the author discusses events suggests that Britain had included Nigeria in its empire for centuries. In actuality, in 1880, Britain had a small toehold on the coast, while a huge area being ruled by the Sokoto Calipahate. Britain’s acquisition of Nigeria as a colony was driven by a number of factors including economics, the scramble for Africa (formalized at the Berlin Conference of 1884. The European powers instigated the much maligned borders between African countries that we now see today; it wasn’t just a British construct) and Britain’s antislavery mission (Sokoto had at least 2mn slaves at this time). Aside from the point that Mr. Sanghera makes that if it hadn’t been Britain it would have been someone else, Nigeria as the colonial entity we understand, actually only fully came in to being in 1914.

Nigeria was therefore under formal colonial rule for 44 years prior to independence in 1960 while the country has been independent for 64 years. So then the question which should be asked is how much is Britain really to blame for Nigeria’s current parlous state. Mr. Sanghera appears to lean heavily on Max Siollun and his rather one-note insights on Nigerian history. However, to gain a better understanding of the forces currently at work there, the author may have done much better to reference others as well.

The example of the author’s discussion on Nigeria brings up another problem with Empireworld and that is there is no real reference to or appreciation of what went before British intervention and what went after. Mr. Sanghera’s default position appears to be that the infrastructure, whether physical, the law, the army, the police etc that Britain left behind are the root of current problems for a number of countries.

The problem here is that blaming what Britain left behind for the situation countries now find themselves in again denies local populations their agency; in this instance, post independence. For example, when one really considers it, Is it really a plausible argument that the Nationalistic Government India now has, for good or ill, has really mainly come about as the result of empire, which ended 77 years ago? This, very simplistically, is what the author seems to be implying has happened and is still currently happening in ex-British colonies today.

Put another way, the Empire left the tools of government, whether that’s democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, a civil service, education etc behind when they departed virtually every colony they had. Yes, the situation could be messy, incomplete or corrupt, but generally the tools were always there to be used, changed or discarded by whomever came next. Surely it is both reasonable and a necessity to objectively discuss whether the tools that were left behind were used correctly if at all?

On the issue of racism, the empire became undeniably became more discriminatory as it developed its levers of what was essentially economic exploitation. This is not news in that any empire which has ever been has been run for the few by the many. How the few distinguish themselves evolves into discrimination, racism, religious intolerance, educational bigotry, pretensions of cultural superiority or other types of exclusions stemming from greater or lesser viciousness.

The rulers of the British Empire didn’t invent this appalling “othering” and with its Hindu Prime Minister, Muslim London mayor and striving for multiculturalism, Britain today can hardly be accused of perpetrating racism. Ultimately any country must be judged by what it has evolved into and not what it was. The author, unfortunately, does not take this tack in making his conclusions.

There is much more one can discuss, but to conclude it should be said that using the scales that the author so abhors, his conclusions on the British Empire would very clearly seem to place it on the bad side of history. This is blandly disappointing given how orthodox this thinking now is despite the complexity of the subject, but of course any one of the many topics raised could file a book twice as long as this one; perhaps then, its brevity may be Empireworld’s ultimate failing.

Ultimately though I am very pleased to have read this book and I am very grateful to the author for having written it – there is real food for thought here, and if nothing else it is clear that while Mr. Sanghera has his views, he is clearly able to enter into a mature debate about a deeply complex and nuanced subject.

[Vitalia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book, but one that makes you lose a bit of faith in humanity. I cannot imagine existing in that headspace for the months/years it takes to write a book. It felt a bit too long to be in it even for the time it took to read it.

[C.Q. Turnstone · Rating 5 out of 5]

In appreciation of an outstanding work of scholarly history (with a magnificent bibliography!), let me reflect the author’s words back in his direction: Empireworld “…like all great literature… offers nuance…”

The vital role of nuance in understanding and discussing the complex realities and messy legacies of British (and European) imperialism is a consistent theme throughout the book.

Empireworld is essential, important reading.

[amycw · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't understand how this book is rating as high as it is. I wanted to DNF this book so badly. As a history teacher, I did not find anything of value in this book. It is incredibly biased (British people = scourge of the Earth, even though the author considers himself British). Practically the entire book is the author talking about himself, bragging about himself, bashing Britain, then telling more anecdotes about himself. I wanted actual history, not constant lectures on social issues.

Some parts that annoyed me the most:

- lecture on how Indians were cool with homosexuality before the British arrived, but British homophobia during the imperialist era has now led to modern-day persecution of LGBTQ+ people in India... even though the British left 77 years ago.
- lecture on how the royal family should grovel and beg for forgiveness and pay $18 trillion in reparations.
- One-sided criticism for Nigeria for not "growing out of" their crime, but then defending India for being dangerous (I'm sure it's Britain's fault).

I'm sure some people will enjoy the anecdotes and the liberal lectures, but I didn't. I want the hours I spent on this book back.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb.
I read this after hearing Sangheera on the excellent Empire podcast.
A brave (he has been attacked repeatedly), well researched and beautifully written discussion on the British Empire and its effects on the world.
Emphatically it is not a polemic: it neither defends nor attacks the Empire; rather, Sangheera advocates for an open minded approach, an honest conversation and to listen to ‘the other side’ - those countries and peoples who were conquered and ruled by the British and other colonial powers.
He does suggest that the royal family should be more honest about their past activities and pro-active in promoting the conversation.
A must read.
Next stop Empireland (which I possibly should have read first).

[Cordelia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an insightful account of Imperialism and has an extensive bibliography, which allows you to follow up on some points. There isn't necessarily any new information here but Sanghera offers an alternative point of view.
I would say that you would need to already have some understanding of the British Empire and Imperialism prior to reading as this doesn't really provide any foundational explanations.

[SLAM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative, convicting, nuanced, graceful, and actionable.

[Meggie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another winner from Sanghera! Very thought provoking and well written book.

[Natasha den Dekker · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Read as part of work bookclub]

Been holding onto this for nearly year and finally cracked it open. Meeting Sathnam in real life gave it another dimension (so smart!!)

I think that...if you are someone that likes to pretend that 'Empire' is something that happened in the past OR if conversations about British patriotism and wokeness bring up specific feelings then this probs isn't for you. Equally if you're on the 'Britain helped abolish slavery' schtick it would be good to read it!

This is a follow on from the (arguably) semimal Empireland and as the names suggest the first was all about the home front and this is all abouy how simulatenously ruined multiple countries/societies/ecosystems but also created the foundation of orgs to challenge those structures.

I feel like he had more fun writing this one? The asides are hilarious and the shade is constant. More history books should be this shady.

In terms of my fave chapters
- the one all about Mauritius. I have never read so much about where my family comes from. (British people are a bit odd in that Brown means India or Pakistan as if the Britian didn't ASK for people from ALL THEIR COLONIES to come over in the 60s/70s to bolster an ailing workforce)

- humanitarian intervention. I felt incredibly vindicated reading this chapter as it echoed my own experiences of working in this sector. (Horrible).

The weirdest takeaway is how all the families that have a colonial legacy still hold majority of the positions of power in the UK. (Shouldn't be a surprise I guess?)

I hope more people read both of these books to drive more nuanced and informed conversations about Empire.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

They need to make this required reading in schools

[hélène]

Every British person should read this!!!! What a wonderfully precise, well-written, and concise book!

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this up not realising it was a semi-sequel to Empireland by the same author. Fortunately you don’t have to have read the first to make sense of the second, but I absolutely will. I tore through this like it was a thriller. It is dense with facts, but presented in a coherent and readable fashion. Sanghera has spent way more time than me considering the ‘balance sheet’ issue of the former British Empire, and his take is respectably nuanced. Despite being an NGO agnostic, I had never thought of them being a vehicle of imperial transition. The ecological insights were wild. Literally the only miss in this book is the reference to ‘Bikram’, rather than ‘hot’ yoga, as it was internationally renamed in the wake of a MeToo scandal, well before the publication of this book. A very entertaining read, but possibly a challenging one if you are in any way romance-pilled about history.

Facts I learned:

Thomas Manuel: ‘The British Raj in the nineteenth century was a narco-state – a country sustained by trade in an illegal drug [opium].’

One of the richest Conservative MPs who is also anti-immigration draws his wealth from the Drax plantation in Barbados.

The ‘guinea’ coinage’s name comes from the British term for the West African slave coast in the time of Charles II.

‘If [European occupation of the African continent] hit more than 90 percent by the early twentieth century, it was not just because of the emergence of the steamship and the Maxim gun, but because of quinine, which didn’t prevent people from getting very ill but often saved them from death.’

Jonathan Kennedy: ‘The political and economic system created by settlers on the north-east coast persisted after independence and helps to explain why the USA has developed into one of the most individualistic and wealthy societies the world has ever seen.’ After the Puritans, the next significant wave of immigration was the Irish Catholics in the 1840s! Like 200 years of Puritan culture-building!

‘Gregory Mann suggests that NGOs represent a new type of colonialism: with NGOs fulfilling basic functions usually provided by the state, housing, sanitation and so on, in this view they deprive people of meaningful citizenship rights [...]’

‘When laws were passed to preserve African wildlife, their main aim was to eradicate hunting by Africans. In the process, Africans not only lost a source of food, exchange and ceremony, they had to live in a world where animals and humans were largely segregated.’

‘As Benton and Ford put it, “alternative stories of good and evil are rarely satisfying. They too often flatten history by turning it into a morality play.’”

Winston Churchill: ‘I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise rac, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.’

“[...] the settler colonisation of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and, in particular, Canada, echoed the westward expansion of the United States; the destiny of Native Americans, Aboriginal people, First Nations and others were intertwined, all of them persecuted by British colonists; all of them were subjected to the same residential school systems and reserve confinement, while the entire expansion effort was funded by networks and commodities transactions that linked the United States, settler colonies and Britain.’

UK institutions have educated one or more ruler in 53 countries in 2023.

During WWII Britain stole 80% Italian assets from Ethiopia – ‘Yet more context that would have been useful for viewers of Live Aid.’

‘This view of British imperial history, where our national history is forever being given an overall rating, as if complex history were a phone-case purchase being rated on Amazon [...] feels more absurd than ever.’

[Nick Roy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Immaculately researched and full of great first-hand experience at seeing the impact of British colonialism, both as an immigrant to the UK and as someone born of a nation so decisively impacted by that same colonial history… this is of course not a groundbreaking topic but still full of excellent specific impacts of colonialism that still takes notable care to highlight the myriad paradoxes of empire and its impact.

[Stephen King · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had read good reviews of this book although hadn’t read its ‘prequel’ -Empireland, which looks at the influence of the British empire on Britain. This looks at the impact that the British empire had on the world - and it’s pretty depressing. Satham Sangheera was born in Wolverhampton to Punjabi immigrant parents and despite his lack of English and humble origins went to Cambridge and emerged with a first class degree. He seems rocked by the strength of racist social media trolling he experienced as a result of the first book and spends much of the first part of the book responding to these attacks and the ‘little Englander’ obsessions of his detractors. As a result, the book loses some perspective - and whilst most of his assessment is totally justified (slavery, environmental degradation, extractive trade, underdevelopment) - it’s is only in the last 50 pages that he acknowledges the difficulties of a ‘balance sheet’ approach to history. The end of the book is quite moving (no spoilers) and it’s this experience which redeems the book for me as his own personal experience and achievements actually provide the answer.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5
I listened and read this. Although I knew quite a lot already I learned a whole lot more and wished my colonial parents were alive to read and discuss it with. They often talked about the old days in Nigeria and India while sipping gin and tonics. My father worked as a doctor for the colonial service in Africa and never settled back into British life. He even spent six months in Biafra during the war there. I think the empire provided a safe space for some who didn’t fit into British society. My generation learned nothing about the toxicity of the British imperialism and I was disappointed to hear my son didn’t either. I’m now reading Empireland which repeats some of the themes. It has footnotes and like EW a long list of notes at the end. This book should definitely be on the curriculum as it delves deep into all the contradictions around the subject. I look forward to seeing the author on Saturday at the Dulwich festival held at the College, which gets a mention in his previous book.

The Dulwich talk was good with the excellent Adam Rutherford. They were both quite rude about the school - especially Old Alleynians like Farage - but if not it wasn’t an angry interview. Sathnam said he was ‘happy to see the Asians present’ but mainly the audience was white and about 50% privately educated. Most of the stuff they spoke about is in the book and he spoke vehemently against the National curriculum, especially English and plays such as ‘an inspector calls’. It was interesting to hear how India is actively deconalising. Some students came in after their cricket match - a game discussed - it was a shame more weren’t at the event.

[Hamid · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, personal exploration of (the British) Empire's impact on the globe, positive and negative. A sober account which primarily looks at the Indian subcontinent and Africa in the British Imperial context. It's more a meditation on various elements than anything else. It was frustrating for me that it took him most of the book to get to a single mention of Palestine in the context of imperialism and even then it felt like a navel-gazing "look guys, I know I haven't mentioned it yet but yeah there's something here but also I kind of don't want to dwell on it". Similarly, most of the Middle East is covered very briefly. Given that the legacies of imperialism include fostered sectarianism, nonsense borders, vast strife, education, infrastructure - all the positives and wrongs he mentions thematically - that resonate so vibrantly throughout the Middle East, it's a shame he didn't devote more than lip service to them.

Saying that, 'Empireworld' is a thoughtful, considered step from 'Empireland'. Wonder if he'll go the Tim Marshall way and have a book dedicated to the future of Empire. 'Empireless' or 'Empire Universe'? You're welcome.

[Vijay Krishnamoorthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to this one as an audiobook - this was a follow up to empireland and is more about how British imperialism shaped the world. Brilliant narrator.

I liked this more because the examples and themes were drawn from different parts of the world. I learned about Guyana and Malaysia in more detail for example.

I liked the authors writing style and deep research. The conclusion was a bit unsatisfying but also realistic because there are no neat endings in this story. Overall I highly recommend

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely interesting and wide-ranging; a really comprehensive survey of the way the British Empire affected and continues to affect countries across the entire globe. Ultimately, although he rejects the balance sheet approach to empire, it's hard not to feel depressed at the fact that some of the world's most complex, protracted and distressing conflicts have their roots in the actions of the many agents of empire.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read another reviewer criticizing this book for lacking nuance. !!! Dude, this book is the definition of nuance. I quite enjoyed Empireland, and this book reads like a continuation of that book. If there is any single thesis that would fit on a T-shirt, it would be “The British Empire: It’s Complicated.”

Whereas in the first book I was puzzled by frequent references to Wolverhampton, now I finally got it: it’s his hometown. That’s all. Because he’s British. It’s sad that, as a journalist, he gets a lot of rants, not to say outright hate, directed at him merely for the crime of saying mildly critical things for which a White Brit would never get called out.

He finishes the book with a moving depiction of his experience at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. In a striking shift of tone, after sourly grousing about train delays and endemic construction zones, the opening ceremonies made him weep with pride and (one does NOT wish to say gratitude) deep appreciation for the essential Britishness of the scene. Essential Britishness (my words)? The ceremonies are characterized by the athletes from all over the world somehow portraying their country. The Bahamas, India, etc. Like the Olympics. Every country, it seemed, gets cheered especially loudly from one or another quarter of the stands, because they generally are all represented in the British population. That sense of coming-together in unity, that sense of mutual acceptance combined with celebration of diversity, is a very uplifting end to a complicated, NUANCED book.

It’s not possible to distill the lessons of the book into crisp bullet points characterizing a thesis with supporting bullet points. For every point, there is a counterpoint. There’s no clear counterfactual for how India would have turned out if the Brits hadn’t built trains and hadn’t introduced the Westminster-modeled parliamentary system. Both chaos and democracy, at the same time, are legacies of colonialism.

I sure learned a lot about Mauritius. (It’s an island just east of Madagascar. Who knew.) This section went on and on. First there was enslavement of Africans. Then, there was emancipation and pretty much simultaneous inception of indentured servitude of Indian “coolies”. (The derogatory “coolie” term is a corruption of some Indian word meaning “work for wages”). Today, in Mauritian society, the descendants of the indentured workers generally occupy the elite roles, while the descendants of the slaves are relegated to socioeconomic marginality. Why? It’s complicated, but serves to illustrate the essential point that chattel slavery was not the same as the indenture system.

Speaking of slavery: Brits love the fact that they outlawed slavery decades before America, but conveniently forget that America was a British colony in the first place, complete with then-prevalent British race obsession.

Another obsession: sexuality. It’s a bit difficult for me to imagine an ancient Western world where being queer was more or less accepted – like you wouldn’t get hanged for being gay – just as skin color was a matter of novelty and curiosity, nothing more. Today, there are several post-colonial countries where to be gay is to be criminalized. Is there a counterfactual where, absent colonization, it would be sweetness and light? Unknown.

Look at the map of Africa and the Middle East, and note the prevalence of long, straight lines. On the ground, these lines tend to cut through the middle of different traditional ethnicities, which by itself explains a good deal of dysfunction. The lines, of course, were colonist inventions. Winston Churchill himself merrily carved out the current boundaries of Jordan in the process of exiting Palestine. Oh, speaking of dysfunction: the creation of Israel, after promising the same land to Arab allies.

“Asking whether the British Empire was good or bad is as inane as asking if weather is good or bad.”

[Amanda Chang · Rating 4 out of 5]

content - 8/10
style - 7.5/10
enjoyment - 7/10

OH DAMN!!!!! i had to keep putting this book down and muttering “damn…..” cause of the POINTS that this book was making. i really enjoyed empireland which objectively investigates the british attitude towards colonialism, but i think this one absolutely outsells the previous one - also maybe because it feels more relevant to me, coming from an ex-british colony and living in the UK now.

from plants and climate change to humanitarian aid and conservation efforts, a wide range of themes are covered to highlight the contradictions that the british empire has brought to the world. in some regions, introducing homophobic legislation (ie: singapore’s 377A) and in others, promoting inclusive attitudes. while some points grew a little repetitive, it was absolutely fascinating to learn about the double truths led by the imperialist regime - driving home the point that a “balance sheet” perspective of analysing and understanding the empire is futile, and nuance is required for productive conversations.

in conversation with my (british) boyfriend, i realise how relevant such discussions are in todays cultural and political climate, and how important it is to understand the history of the institutions that still have a hand in shaping our world today. i also realise how much the british empire has had a hand in so many aspects that shape my personal life, positively (overall advancements in technology, the diverse makeup of the current british population that consist of my wonderful uni friends, english being my first language even though i’m from singapore) and negatively (eurocentric beauty standards that i’ll never meet, a complicated relationship with my home, me being shit at chinese)

and similar to the previous book - the author does a wonderful job of breaking down complicated themes and making them easier to understand!

[Teresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is cogent and well-argued for the most part, but also has too many instances where the line of causality is stretched to breaking point and beyond. And I hated the attempts at humour, they seemed out of place.

[Mark Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn't enjoy this as much as Empireland. Found it heavy going at times and just less engaging. A constant stream of often lengthy footnotes at the bottom of almost every page became an irritant, too. 2.5 stars

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this more than I did. It’s too dense and the author is trying to tackle too much so you struggle to absorb everything he’s saying. A pity as I really liked Empireland.

[Hans · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some fresh concepts, such as the chaotic approach to governing, and some doubling down on inconvenient truths, such as the big role in slavery. But overall felt like the recording of a chat.

[Aishlin Armstrong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good

[Tom Pugh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gave up on the audiobook. Found it just listing tonnes of facts