The Book Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall is written by Amy Chua (Book Review Sample)

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall
Name:
Institution:
Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall
Overview of the Book
The book Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall is written by Amy Chua, a law professor at Yale. The author variously describes her book as a tribute to America for its tolerant attitude while also intoning that it is meant to be a warning against the empire building. The book mainly revolves around the idea of the hyperpower, which denotes those societies that amasses so much economic strength and military might that they, in essence, come to dominate the whole world. The author explores this theme by examining the ancient empires right up to the United States of America which is currently the sole hyperpower. The author discusses the successes and failures of great empires including those of the Persians, the Romans, and the Tang dynasty of China, the Mongols of Asia, the British and the United States. The author concludes and notes that these empires tend to follow a distinctive pattern, with each of them exhibiting traits of being tolerant and pluralistic in nature.
The author uses the term hyperpower, to refer to those empires that ascended to positions of great power and influence during their heydays. The authors first cite and the Persian Empire and explores the theme of tolerance in light of their idea of letting vanquished people live under their own customs. The tolerance witnessed in the Persian Empire was however only possible to maintain as long as order was kept in the empire and was not the type that could be practiced in any democratic society. The author then zeroes in on the Roman Empire and explores the issue of tolerance in view of the conflict between pagans and Christians. The author cites intolerance as one of the reasons why the Empire collapsed. The author also explores the Tang Dynasty in China and analyzes how intolerance by the Tang emperors led to the downfall of the empire. The author, in particular, explores the struggle between Buddhism and other religions. The theme follows through in the analysis of the other empires notably the Mongols, Dutch, Spanish and the Americans.
The author argues that all the empires that have dominated the world in the course of history right from the Persians to the hegemonistic America prospered due to a shared strategy of inclusion and tolerance and also by embracing the differences and diversities of their subjects. The author goes ahead to note that the Mongols, who in The 13th Century established an empire that stretched all the way from Vienna to the Sea of Japan, despite the fact that they did not possess any original technology and were mostly illiterate, succeeded in part because they practiced religious and ethnic tolerance, a virtue that was quite unheard of during that period.
In driving home the point of tolerance and power, the author cites the example of the Emperor Akbar, who ruled over the Mughal Empire flourished both as a ruler and as an individual due to his policy of strategic tolerance. Amy Chua describes the strategy adopted by Akbar as that of ”multicultural copulation”. This is mainly because the emperor intermarried widely throughout his kingdom. The author intimates that by the time of his death, Akbar had over 300 wives, including Indians, Turks, Persians, Rajput’s, Afghans, and even Christian women.
Critique
Although the book is generally well written and gives an incisive look at the rise and fall of some of the great empires of the ancient and modern world, the big question is to whom was the book intended, from the subject line, it’s not evident whether the book is meant for academics or students in search of new insights or even the general public out to look for some entertaining reading.
The central argument of the book is that tolerance is a necessary virtue for any nation to ascend to a position of power and that those nations with a streak of intolerance are bound to collapse. However, this thesis is a bit too simplistic to hold any weight, especially as regards the United States. The author claims that the United States has risen to a point of global dominance by virtue of it being a tolerant society. She does not mention the issues of slavery and the treatment of Indians and other minority groups. When analyzed against her claims, the United States does not come across as a society that is inherently tolerant. The author’s allegations that the Mongol Empire was tolerant cannot stand the test of time. The Mongols were known for their extreme brutality as they sought to expand their empire. Under Genghis Khan, the Mongols laid waste vast tracts of land, and his military campaigns led to the deaths, suffering, and displacement of so many people. It’s also hypocritical to describe the British Empire, at the height of its power of being tolerant of its subjects. The author’s reasoning, as regards Britain, is flawed because of the focus on India, yet apart from India, the British Empire included vast areas of east and southern Africa. Britain committed countless atrocities in its colonies in Africa. Even in India, which the author tends to gloss over as a picture of the British tolerance over their subjects, tolerance only existed in the earlier stages of the colonization process. This was mainly because of the British being tolerant of the darker races, but in the subsequent years, rule enforcement and restrictions alienated many people in the Indian colonies. The scenario was the same in Ireland where a mostly Protestant Britain lorded it over the Irish who were mainly Catholic, there was so much religious intolerance in Ireland that the Irish rose up in arms to protest British rule.
The book is also blighted by the fact that author does not give a precise definition of tolerance as portrayed in her book. It's common knowledge that the term is relative and can assume different meanings in different contexts. Tolerance, as defined in the days of Cyrus the great or during the time of the Persians, portrays an entirely different meaning as compared to today’s democracies. In the ancient days, tolerance was a simple matter of either pay your tribute and swear allegiance or you are killed. But today, the term is pretty fuzzy with no clear-cut meaning.
One thing that comes out especially on a closer scrutiny of the author’s sources is that nearly all of them are are secondary sources with a vast majority being of Anglo-Saxon scholars. This renders her choices highly selective and hence to narrow to be of any relevance to the breadth of the period analyzed in her work. It also seems that in picking out what to include in her works from the referenced sources, the author picked out only what seems relevant to her at the time while discarding the parts that were not consistent with her thesis. This in essence reduces the complexity of the work as it could have been better if the author had included views that are in opposition to the central thesis then carry out a comparative analysis, to weight the findings.
The author's work is largely based on the works of authors like Immanuel Wallerstein and ignores the works of critical thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche in building up her case for the role of tolerance in empire building. She also omits the works of modern day living scholars like William McNeill, who have written extensively on the rise and fall of empires. Overall, she largely excludes the works of continental European writers and relies on the works of a few Anglo-Saxon writers. This situation brings about a selective interpretation of the central theme of the book
Although it is a historically prove fact that tolerance in the society may foster an empire or country’s rise to power, the converses are also true. It may be a sign of weakness in that the country or empire may end up losing its grip on its subjects by giving in too much. Much of how tolerance leads to the prosperity of nations relies so much on the context within which it is practiced. There are some societies that view tolerance as a sign of weakness. For example, it could have been foolhardy to expect Julius Caesar to be tolerant of the Gaul’s and Huns knowing their barbaric nature. In fact, in his situation, it’s the high level of intolerance the he exhibited against these tribes that made them dwell in peace with the empire. It hence goes without saying that Intolerance, though breeding hostility and eventually leading to rebellions and possibly military defeat, may also help in consolidating an empire or country or to prevent its fragmentation.
On a closer reading of the book, it appears as if the author is not utterly convinced that the central thesis of her work is correct. For example, there is a point where the author argues: "If the central thesis of this article is correct, America has assumed the position of hyper-power today above all because it leads the rest of the world when it comes to tolerance." (Chua, 2009).The author then continues: "If this is true, and if history is any guide, China can only overtake the United States as the world's next hyperpower only if it surpasses the United States at displaying strategic tolerance."(Chua, 2009). She goes on to pose the question that: "Can an authoritarian, and rogue-state-sympathetic country like China do so?"(Chua, 2009). These sentiments by the author portrays indecisiveness and goes a long way to show to what extent she ignores some of the key factors that underlay tolerance and in the process, ignores the complex nature of the whole argument of tolerance.
Students of history are well aware of the fact that it’s n...