Reviews for The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980

The average rating for The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-08-05 00:00:00 Regan Inkster This really is a goofy book. Starting with the cover, what is it even trying to depict?? Anyways, The Dynamics of Global Dominance is a political scientist's attempt to take 500 years of European colonization and fit it into a tight, neat theory about how Europe achieved global dominance and why it failed. As you can imagine, it seems absolutely senseless to try to even attempt this. I thought so before going into this book, and now I'm even more convinced that it's senseless. So, when Abernethy talks about imperialism, he is really only interested in European maritime empires. He finds this qualitatively different from other global empires like the Ottomans, the many Chinese empires, the many Arab empires, etc. etc. etc. The defining feature of European empires, in Abernethy's view, is that they are run by individuals who conquer specific places with the assumption that the conqueror is fundamentally superior, and thus try to force their culture on indigenous peoples. This is in contrast to groups like the Mongols, who, after conquering a territory, often assimilated into that region's culture. While I agree with this in many cases, many dynasties of Chinese emperors viewed themselves as being superior to the conquered (for example, the inhabitants of what is now southern China, who became Han after they assimilated to the culture of the rule of their northern neighbors). While Arab conquerors did often assimilate to some degree with local populations (especially in places like Persia or much of the Maghreb), they often Arabized many others (for example, greater Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.). Moreover, I disagree strongly with Abernethy's characterization of imperialism more broadly. He finds that an empire is a state-system where a metropolitan state has a claim (and control) over the public administration of another state. This is rightfully inclusive of formal colonies like British Kenya, as well as protectorates like American Panama and French Tunisia. However, his insistence that there must necessarily be a discrete metropole that is distinct from colonies has me scratching my head a bit. I think that the Habsburg Empire is the most instructive here. As we know, the center of Habsburg rule was essentially Vienna, in Habsburg Austria. Let's call Habsburg Austria the "metropole." But, how do we make sense of other Habsburg territories? Was Habsburg Czechoslovakia part of the metropole (it was part of Cisleithenia, so part of Austria), even though it was often treated like a colony? What about Habsburg Hungary? Hungary was another center of political power, being the metropolitan center of Transleithenia. Perhaps the Habsburgs have two, essentially overlapping, metropoles. How about Croatia, which was in Transleithenia but was inhabited mostly by Croats, who were essentially colonized? The only clear case that I can think of is Habsburg Bosnia, which was a part of neither Cisleithenia nor Transleithenia and was veritably its own discrete colony. Perhaps I'm ranting too much about Habsburgs here, but I think it illustrates my point that Abernethy's view of metropole-colony relationships are too narrow, and unwilling to grapple with other forms of empire. Maybe in fitting into Abernethy's analysis of saltwater empires, it would be better to look at Algeria, which was legally considered an integral part of metropolitan France, despite it being governed like a colony. Under Abernethy's theory, France's relationship with Algeria would not be considered "imperial," which is a glaring oversight. I think I've explained well enough the problems with using narrow political science "theories" to think about historical processes where I don't have to explain further. Abernethy's theorizing continues through the entire book, stripping the idiosyncracies of diverse places and periods away and, in the process, making European empires appear quite different than they were in reality.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-10-03 00:00:00 Brian Mahoney An extraordinarily detailed account of European hegemony looking at the consequences of sectoral influences as opposed to the more Eurocentric explanations that are often discussed.