Emy Chua. Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall



Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Write a review
Add to Cart
Add to Wish List


Top positive review
See all 57 positive reviews›
8 people found this helpful
5.0 out of 5 starscreative
ByNancyhuaon January 23, 2011
I am not a history buff by any means and I often find history books hard to read because it's hard for me to connect all the complicated components together to understand or remember enough to really absorb the heart of some time or place. This book was surprisingly easy for me to read- I suspect Chua simplifies a lot of ideas and events to achieve this. She gallops through and recaps the histories of a variety of hyperpowers which I enjoyed mainly because I don't know anything about history, but I think her recaps would be boring to anyone who actually knows world history. Thus I would classify this book as a fun history overview that introduces you to a variety of civilizations rather than as a serious, in depth study. And obviously Chua is not an historian.

Nevertheless her book includes a variety of interesting ideas that she communicates clearly.

Ideas:

-The Mongols rose as a hyperpower despite their technological inferiority by allowing religious freedom and adopting the innovations of the peoples they conquered.

-The British became a hyperpower by being relatively religiously tolerant for the time and allowing the Dutch to come in to set up the London Stock Exchange and a Scot to set up the Bank of England.

-The USA rose as a hyperpower by actively recruiting immigrants, providing a relatively tolerant place and thus remaining a place of socioeconomic mobility that attracts the best of the best from other countries.

-She also analyzes the connection between intolerance and the fall of hyperpowers, like how England's inability to tolerate Catholics led to the loss of Ireland and how the Inquisition removed Spain from the world stage.

-Some ideological glue is necessary to keep an empire together, and she mainly goes through the fall of the Mongol empire and various others to show how they lacked glue. In the case of the USA, while US culture and products dominate the world, the McDonald's eating, Hollywood watching kid in Africa does not consider himself American no matter how much American culture invades his life, so despite wanting to go to America and wanting American things, the kid feels no loyalty to the US and even resents its power. This glue part especially could have been fleshed out more but I still found it fascinating and original.

I found her last section about the modern world to be the most interesting because she includes a lot of recent events that I find more relevant to my life and she has theories about various countries.

On China as a potential hyperpower:
Although China's ethnocentrism allows it to attract back Chinese who left for other countries, China doesn't succeed in attracting immigrants from other countries because it doesn't allow foreigners to assimilate- even after speaking Chinese for 40 years a non-Chinese is still considered a foreigner and generally does not gain citizenship.

On the European Union:
Although the EU attracts countries it only allows for increased tolerance within Europe and remains forbidding to non-European immigrants because of language barriers and a reputation of racism against non-Europeans.

On India:
Described as more bottom-up innovation compared to China's top-down style, India is improving rapidly but has a long way to go before it can attract the cream of the crop and seems to hope for equal partnership rather than world domination.

On the USA:
Is the USA past its zenith as a hyperpower? The USA embarked on traditional imperialism with Iraq with disastrous results, partly because traditional imperialism is incompatible with the USA's tenet of democracy and equality. She writes the USA had reached hyperpower status through innovation and commerce rather than military domination and so its recent activities have changed its reputation dramatically. Rather than pride, US citizens now often feel fear, anger, shame, sadness. At least the US is doing better than the EU at including our various ethnic groups- the US has less home-grown terrorism.

Africa and South America are only mentioned as colonies and apparently are not even underdogs as hyperpower candidates.

I loved this book as a superficial overview of the histories of various hyperpowers and for its original ideas that got me thinking and inspired me to learn more. I do not think this book is a serious history book. I think it's supposed to have more popular appeal and I repeat: Chua is not an historian so her book is not going to have that level of historical analysis or expertise that you might expect from an historian- she also includes various personal anecdotes that entertain me but which a history buff may find annoying.

What qualifies her to write on these topics then? I'd say sheer brazenness, interest, and creativity. She seems obsessed by ethnic studies and just went ahead and wrote about them despite a lack of expert knowledge, and I think she succeeded in writing a fascinating book for the lay person.
Read more

Top critical review
See all 31 critical reviews›
14 people found this helpful
3.0 out of 5 starsTo a hammer, everything is a nail. (Tolerance=panacea)
ByLeib Gershon Mitchellon October 22, 2010
One advantage that this history book has is that it is readable in the way that many other history books are not. It doesn't dwell on any one topic too long such that the reader comes close to perishing of boredom ("God's Terrorists," for example). That said, the best use of this book is to synopsize/ review your undergraduate / high school history classes and help you remember the names and dates of various empires. Some of the things were new (to me), such as: how the Netherlands came to be such a great trading nation and won its independence from Spain. But overall, I came away with the feeling that the author did this book in a Texas sharpshooter-like fashion (i.e., she started out with a thesis and just cherry-picked the data to wrap it around what she had already made up her mind to be the case-- this instead of looking at some number of case studies and then drawing her conclusions). In fact, it may have been even worse than that. Sometimes it felt more Thomas Friedman-esque (whose mind takes two or three points and then connects them in a way that has no basis in empirical reality). But, a book that discussed enough fallen empires in enough detail to be thorough would have also been very long and very boring (a la Toynbee). The author may have made a conscious trade off between readability and depth.

Selected points from selected chapters:

1. Chapter 3. I was surprised that the author was willing to concede multiculturalism as a factor in the decline of any empire (even though she states the opposite at least a couple more times before the end of the book). She writes (p.81): "As a result, no common political, linguistic, or cultural "glue" bound "barbarians" and Chinese together..... Ming Huang found himself ruling over large numbers of distinct, fiercely independent communities with no loyalty or even goodwill toward their Chinese overlords." And so from there the decline of the Tang Dynasty dragged on for 150 years (and that was the best dynasty in all of Chinese history, let the Chinese tell it). Um, wasn't the thesis of the book supposed to be that multiculturalism was a benefit to a nation?

2. Chapter 5-- only 10 pages. So, in Chapter 3 she says that tolerance = decline, but now in Chapter 5 intolerance= decline? I believe that this chapter should have been about the benefits of the separation of church and state. But, it was stretched beyond recognition to be about "tolerance."

3. Chapter 6. I am not sure if the tolerance of the Dutch in bringing Jews to Holland (who want to contribute and make money) is quite the same as being tolerant of Muslims in Holland (who want to re-form the last/next caliphate). It just might be that tolerance is not a categorically good thing. And the Muslims in Europe have been a problem for a long time and are only going to get worse. This chapter was, at least, a nice primer on how Holland/ the Netherlands came to be the country that it is.

4. Chapter 7. Islam is like Christianity, "on which it was based." (p. 169). Wow! Chua *really* needs to go over her notes. Yes, Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic and Abrahamic-- but the similarity ends there. Earlier in the book, she says that the Great Wall was built by Qin Shi Huang (the first emperor of China), but later she says that it was built by the Ming rulers. These are both factually incorrect. The Great Wall was built over a very long period by many dynasties. (For a discussion thereof, see "The Great Wall," by Julia Lovell.)

5. Chapter 8. Chua again does not make a distinction between people who come to a nation to build it (Scotsmen becoming part of British society in order to contribute and advance within the system) and people who come to destroy/ take over/ crash the gates of a nation (Muslims just about anywhere). Sorry, but immigration is not a categorically good thing. She talked about different reasons to increase immigration, but I think that she was treating immigration as a Philsophy subject rather than taking some very technical studies of immigration in different places and seeing what happened. (p.235)

6. Chapter 10. Um, Japan and Germany did not fall apart because they were intolerant. They fell apart because they were overstretched (even worse than the author's arguments). And much the same story of the Mongol Empire. And the Roman Empire, for that matter. Maybe it's a testatment to the author's intelligence that she could take something so obvious and then work so hard to not draw the obvious lesson.

7. Chapter 12. The book really fell apart at the end. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when she talked about (p.329-332) finding some glue with which America could bring people to its cause (this glue was supposed to bind sovereign nations together). It was bad enough that she dismissed Samuel Huntington's thesis of America's core character being attenuated by the influx of so many Latino/ Spaniophone immigrants. But then she went one further by saying that "glue" is suitable for building links between nations but not *within* nations. So, America should not think of itself as Anglo-Protestant, since that would be "intolerant," but we should find mechanisms to create glue between us and other nations?

In a nutshell, Chua has not proven her case (that there is in fact any relationship at all between the tolerance of an empire and how long it survives). The longest lasting empire in the world (the Chinese Empire) is not at all tolerant-- but it is very long lived. The more tolerant countries in the world don't look like they will survive the onslaught of Muslim immigrants (Europe) and it is doubtful that others will survive language conflict (USA). The facts presented in this book could have just as easily been used to detail some of the management mistakes that countries make that lead to their downfall.

The book is worth a second-hand purchase price.
Read more

Ad feedback



Search
SORT BY
Top rated
FILTER BY
All reviewersAll starsAll formatsText, image, video
5.0 out of 5 starscreative
ByNancyhuaon January 23, 2011
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I am not a history buff by any means and I often find history books hard to read because it's hard for me to connect all the complicated components together to understand or remember enough to really absorb the heart of some time or place. This book was surprisingly easy for me to read- I suspect Chua simplifies a lot of ideas and events to achieve this. She gallops through and recaps the histories of a variety of hyperpowers which I enjoyed mainly because I don't know anything about history, but I think her recaps would be boring to anyone who actually knows world history. Thus I would classify this book as a fun history overview that introduces you to a variety of civilizations rather than as a serious, in depth study. And obviously Chua is not an historian.

Nevertheless her book includes a variety of interesting ideas that she communicates clearly.

Ideas:

-The Mongols rose as a hyperpower despite their technological inferiority by allowing religious freedom and adopting the innovations of the peoples they conquered.

-The British became a hyperpower by being relatively religiously tolerant for the time and allowing the Dutch to come in to set up the London Stock Exchange and a Scot to set up the Bank of England.

-The USA rose as a hyperpower by actively recruiting immigrants, providing a relatively tolerant place and thus remaining a place of socioeconomic mobility that attracts the best of the best from other countries.

-She also analyzes the connection between intolerance and the fall of hyperpowers, like how England's inability to tolerate Catholics led to the loss of Ireland and how the Inquisition removed Spain from the world stage.

-Some ideological glue is necessary to keep an empire together, and she mainly goes through the fall of the Mongol empire and various others to show how they lacked glue. In the case of the USA, while US culture and products dominate the world, the McDonald's eating, Hollywood watching kid in Africa does not consider himself American no matter how much American culture invades his life, so despite wanting to go to America and wanting American things, the kid feels no loyalty to the US and even resents its power. This glue part especially could have been fleshed out more but I still found it fascinating and original.

I found her last section about the modern world to be the most interesting because she includes a lot of recent events that I find more relevant to my life and she has theories about various countries.

On China as a potential hyperpower:
Although China's ethnocentrism allows it to attract back Chinese who left for other countries, China doesn't succeed in attracting immigrants from other countries because it doesn't allow foreigners to assimilate- even after speaking Chinese for 40 years a non-Chinese is still considered a foreigner and generally does not gain citizenship.

On the European Union:
Although the EU attracts countries it only allows for increased tolerance within Europe and remains forbidding to non-European immigrants because of language barriers and a reputation of racism against non-Europeans.

On India:
Described as more bottom-up innovation compared to China's top-down style, India is improving rapidly but has a long way to go before it can attract the cream of the crop and seems to hope for equal partnership rather than world domination.

On the USA:
Is the USA past its zenith as a hyperpower? The USA embarked on traditional imperialism with Iraq with disastrous results, partly because traditional imperialism is incompatible with the USA's tenet of democracy and equality. She writes the USA had reached hyperpower status through innovation and commerce rather than military domination and so its recent activities have changed its reputation dramatically. Rather than pride, US citizens now often feel fear, anger, shame, sadness. At least the US is doing better than the EU at including our various ethnic groups- the US has less home-grown terrorism.

Africa and South America are only mentioned as colonies and apparently are not even underdogs as hyperpower candidates.

I loved this book as a superficial overview of the histories of various hyperpowers and for its original ideas that got me thinking and inspired me to learn more. I do not think this book is a serious history book. I think it's supposed to have more popular appeal and I repeat: Chua is not an historian so her book is not going to have that level of historical analysis or expertise that you might expect from an historian- she also includes various personal anecdotes that entertain me but which a history buff may find annoying.

What qualifies her to write on these topics then? I'd say sheer brazenness, interest, and creativity. She seems obsessed by ethnic studies and just went ahead and wrote about them despite a lack of expert knowledge, and I think she succeeded in writing a fascinating book for the lay person.

8 people found this helpful

Helpful

Not Helpful|3 comments|Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsAn important lesson from history
ByFCRichelieuon August 5, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
This is an excellent book. It is an extraordinarily ambitious project to go through the entire human history--starting from the Persian Empire in 559BC to today's USA--looking at the rise and fall of hyperpowers that had/have attained global dominance. And the author has succeeded admirably in producing a piece of work that is academically rigorous yet gripping to the general reader.

The comprehensiveness and depth of the author's research over the entire span of recorded human history is impressive. She shows us how history has repeated itself time and again. More importantly, she offers excellent insight in identifying a thread--the most important single factor--that connects the rise and fall of all the hyperpowers throughout human history. With the eloquence of the Yale Professor that she is, the author presents a convincing case that tolerance has been a most important and necessary condition in the rise of a hyperpower in each and every case, and the lack of tolerance an evident contributing factor to decline.

I would recommend this book highly to anyone who is interested in learning from history. This is particularly true in today's context when the United States dominates the world militarily and economically. The lesson in history is too important to be ignored.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsMs Chua's research, objectivity, clarity and insight are ...
ByMary Wongon January 27, 2018
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
Ms Chua's research, objectivity, clarity and insight are unparalleled. He arguments are impenetrable and flawless. I rather think we should let her run the world. Empress Chua, Leader of the Federation of Planets.


Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
4.0 out of 5 starsAmy Chua's books are always very good. I wish Amy Chua had had space to ...
Bymcmulleton March 20, 2016
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
Amy Chua's books are always very good. I wish Amy Chua had had space to include some other empires. There are so many. But I certainly agree with her points, and she certainly does her research and makes those points well.


Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsA must read
ByAltaon June 16, 2012
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
I have not yet completed reading this book, however, it is the most interesting book I have read in a long time. Ms. Chua commands your attention and makes you follow her line of reasoning. I only read a chapter or two at a time so that I won't finish it so soon - like relishing each thought process. Every American could learn and enjoy history, as one super power after another is defined and explained. My doctor recommended the book and said he couldn't put it down - that alone caught my attention because he has such a busy schedule. Now, I know what he meant - it is amazing. This book should be used in our educational programs for high school and college students. I have now finished the Book "Day of Empire" and it exceeded my expectations. I have personally recommended this book to my husband and friends.


Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
4.0 out of 5 starsNice History, Mediocre Commentary
ByJason S. Tayloron September 24, 2009
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
Amy Chu's virtue is simply that she is a good researcher in social sciences. She collects facts and gives them in an entertaining manner. Her fault is that she tries to be a commentator as well and does so in a clumsy manner. This can be seen in her other great work World On Fire.

Her basic point is that empires are based on tolerance. Of course this does bear a remarkable suspicion of "being nice makes you rich". But at the same time it does have a point. Even conquerors do not rule totally without their subjects consent for it is to difficult, and obviously trading empires(as opposed to millitary ones)do not as someone has to buy from them. At the same time her point is hammered home a wee bit to hard. It doesn't address properly that tolerance might have philosophical limits(which are not the concern here) and prudential ones(which are). It does address that there must always be enough cohesion to balance a given states tolerance. However can seem that it does not address that well enough to my mind. Furthermore it does not seem to give proper attention to the point that tribalism is probably a stronger pull then Imperial Grandeur simply because most people like their cousins better then their Emperor. And of course the dark side of tribal instinct is intolerance. Finally it does not address the possibility that the reverse of Chu's theory is equally true: growth brings immigrants just as much as immigrants bring growth. In short her message is incoherant though not without good advice.

What is more interesting is the history which is well worth the time for their own sake. Chua has the love for rags to riches stories that she showed in World On Fire. She gives the fascinating tales of several obscure states(all empires were once obscure states) that rose to glory and the strategies they used to attain domination. She also gives stories of the interesting people that helped attain that rise. Finally she tells the weakness through which they fell.

One good point that was made toward the end was the point that commerce in modern times is a more reliable source of power then conquest. There is more then a little truth to that, although there have been commercial empires from time immemorial, perhaps before there were military ones. Be that as it may, the modern era has made the purse at least in some instances mightier then the sword.

In any case my estimate is that you should not read this story for political advice. It is not necessarily bad advice but it is somewhat shallow. Read this book to learn about and enjoy the past. Read it to find how different nations have risen to glory. And how they fell.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
4.0 out of 5 starsFour Stars
ByEduardoon February 12, 2018
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
It’s what I expected


Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsThis is a great summer read for AP World History students
ByWendy Butleron September 28, 2016
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
This is a great summer read for AP World History students. The first few chapters introduces them to many of the empires they will study in Period 2.


Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsCandid opinions
ByNorth Sunnyon June 1, 2015
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
Very good book on topics most people will avoid. The author expressed deep opinions our decision makers should at least take a look at if they care about America's future. We need more people like the author with eyes that can see the future, not just current politics. America has been leading the world in the past century. With clear thinking and correct policies it will thrive and keep leading the world. That goal can be achieved by learning the lessons from the past, avoiding making mistakes, and seeing into the future. Read this book and you will get some ideas.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Not Helpful|Comment|Report abuse
4.0 out of 5 starsExcellent historical summaries of each empire and some very well ...
ByCDon August 2, 2014
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
I am enjoying helping my daughter with her summer assignment involving this book. Excellent historical summaries of each empire and some very well thought out points by the author.