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

It is another wonderful book written by Amy Chua. The central thesis of the book is that a country has to be tolerant in order to reach global dominance. However, tolerance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for becoming a dominant empire. The other conditions could include geography, large population, natural resources, leadership, etc. I completely agree with the fact that in order to be dominant a country has to be tolerant. What separates a dominant country from others is its access to top talent in technology, science, military, trade, business, and other areas of human activities. Historically, none of the dominant countries had a monopoly on the top human capital. In order to become dominant, societies had to attract and motivate the world's best and brightest people. These people would contribute to their societies to the maximum of their abilities only if they felt that the societies valued them despite the fact that these people had customs and traditions different from those of the core ethnic groups. Fear was another alternative for motivating people. But as history demonstrated time and again, it could motivate people only for relatively short periods of time. As soon as people had a chance to escape from this "motivator" they would do it by seceding from the empires, by defecting from them, or simply by intentionally failing to reach their full potential in order not to attract attention of the authorities. Tolerance is important not only for building dominant empires but also for building great companies, sports teams, and other organizations. Just take a look at some of the "dominant" teams in soccer, the most popular global sport. In addition to players representing host countries, the best teams include players from all continents but Antarctica. For example, AC Milan, Manchester United and Barcelona were recent winners of the UEFA (European) Champions League, one of the most prestigious competitions in the soccer world. These teams had 8, 12 and 8 foreign players, respectively, among 18 players selected for the final games. These players would not have joined the teams unless they felt that they would be accepted there. The same is true for the business world. Most globally "dominant" companies often have at least several foreign managers, who have skills complementary to those of managers from the host countries. For example, Intel Corporation, a dominant producer of microprocessors, has senior managers who came not only from the United States, but also from India, Israel and the United Kingdom.

I'm always annoyed by newspaper articles that tell you why people are going to war today without the history. Here is the history. Well worth the time of anyone interested in current events.

First it must be stated that the author is a lawyer & not a professional historian, so take her thesis & my overly positive review with a grain of salt. The author compares hyperpowers of the past to those who almost were as well as to the contemporary ones. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan & the former Soviet Union are some examples. The book is divided into three parts with four chapters in each. "Part- 1 Ch1, The Tolerance Of Barbarians. Ch-1, The First Hegemon-Achemenid Persia. Ch-2, Tolerance In Rome's High Empire. Ch-3, China's Golden Age. Ch-4, The Great Mongol Empire.Part-2 The Enlightening Of Tolerance Ch-5, The Purification Of Medieval Spain. Ch-6, The Dutch World Empire. Ch-7, Tolerance & Intolerance In The East. Ch-8, The British Empire.Part-3 The Future Of World Dominance. Ch-9, The American Hyperpower. Ch-10, The Rise & Fall Of The Axis Powers. Ch-11, The Challengers. Ch-12, The Day Of Empire." I would read this chapter first & then the whole book. In short the hyperpowers of Persia, Rome, Tang dynasty China, the Mongols, the Dutch, the British, & the USA in different ways & for various lengths of time were the most successful & influential in history. While Ming China, & the empires of Spain & the Ottoman Turks were "might have beens as far as hyperpowers go." The former do to its isolationism, & the latter two do to their varying degrees of intolerance, the suppression of knowledge, & lack of a home grown innovative & commercial class. Both of these constantly had to hire foreigner merchants & bankers to keep their economies going. They also often had to hire foreigners to help build their navies since their own technology was often stagnant. The irony that the Jews & Arabs who were brutally expelled from Spain, would eventually reinvigorate the Ottomans. Who would later foil Spain's aspirations of conquering both North africa & the middle east was a true case of "reaping what you sowed." Although not mentioned by the author, I recommend everyone read Donald Matthew's "The Norman Kingdom Of Sicily," because it was a multi-ethnic & religious state that had the tolerance & innovative populations that Miss Chua focuses on. As for the USA, our success has been our unrivalled ability to attract & retain enterprising immigrants & our ability to assimilate people from various races & nationalities into being Americans. But, today , concerns about uncontrolled illegal immigration & job outsourcing has produced a backlash against our tradition of "cultural openess." She asks has the USA hit a tipping point?" Have we gone overboard with our tolerance & diversity to the point that our national unity & cohesion are falling apart? Could other rising powers like India, China, or the European Union eventually surpass the USA? As f

This is a well written, engaging look at empires past and present. Amy Chua examines the history of so called hyperpowers of the past, empires which completely dominated their worlds, and compares them to the twenty-first century hyperpower, the United States of America. In doing so she has produced a fine work of comparative history with some thought provoking analyses applicable to our own time. Some of Chua's empires will be familiar, like the Roman and the British Empires, and others like the Achaemenid Empire of Persia less so to most readers. Chua sees the common element to their success as their ability to tolerate multiple religions and cultures while at the same time providing some sort of "glue" to hold the disparate elements together. Empires which are not tolerant, like the Umayyad Caliphate or Nazi Germany, will not survive to become dominant or hyperpowers. Chua made use of many secondary sources and quotes liberally from them, sometimes to the point of distraction, but this should not detract from the fine quality of her work, especially in the final chapters, when she compares the United States in the early twenty-first century to other hyperpowers and comes up with some clear recommendations and warnings: avoid the tendency to xenophobia and unilateral action and maintain the time honored traditions of welcoming (but controlling) immigration and extending tolerance and acceptance to newcomers and minorities. It is to be hoped that hers is a voice which will be heard and respected in coming years.

Amy Chua is a professor of law at Yale Law School, but it seems that her true passion is history. In her previous book, World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, she did a series of case studies on market-dominant minorities and the countries in which they reside. As these countries transitioned to democracy, the minorities became targets of resentment and even violence. It was an original work showing some of the adverse consequences of rapid democratization. This new work is equally original. Now she has done a series of studies on history's hyperpowers, and how they achieved that status. Surprisingly, the key to achieving hyperpower success is not brute force and imposition of a monoculture, but tolerance and acceptance of other cultures. And, on the downside, if this diversity is not properly managed, it will lead to the hyperpower's decline. The hyperpowers studied are a diverse group. They include Achaemenid Persia, Rome's High Empire, Tang China, Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, the Ottoman and Mughal Empires, the Spanish, Dutch, British, and American Empires. With such a varied list, critics will pounce and demand a sharper definition of terms. Professional historians will be quick to point out novice mistakes. First the term hyperpower. By this term, Chua means not merely a great power or a superpower, but a world-dominant power. A power that amassed such military and economic strength that no other power on earth could challenge it. Achaemenid Persia ruled over 1/3 of the world's population, the Mongols under Genghis Khan conquered half the known world, Rome conquered most of the known world, and the British had an empire on which the sun never set. It should also be noted that all hyperpowers were technologically dominant giving them the economic and military edge. Tolerance is also a very broad term. Tolerance in today's Western democracies means something different than it did in the time of Cyrus the Great or Genghis Khan. For Chua, it means "letting very different kinds of people - regardless of ethnicity, religion, or skin color - live, work, and prosper, even if for instrumental or strategic reasons." This could be called a cynical or relative notion of tolerance. In ancient times it was more black and white: either pay tribute and allegiance or be killed. In modern times the notion is more fuzzy, more like: if you join the program, we can both benefit, if not we both suffer. Chua's notion of tolerance applies to both. Towards the end of the book, Chua takes a look at the US as a hyperpower. She examines the anti-immigrant sentiments in the light of historical notions of tolerance. This is a bit of a muddle since foreigners volutarily entering the US are different from peoples conquered in their own lands. Nevertheless, the US has always had an excellent record on immigration and assimilation, of which Chua herself is a stellar example. She argues th