Compare Ferguson’s account of imperial “benefits” with postcolonial arguments about exploitation and inequality in works such as Edward Said’s Orientalism, Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, or Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture. To what extent can Empire be read as a response to postcolonial theory? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Ferguson’s revisionism?

How dos Ferguson’s rhetorical style (e.g., provocative questions, use of figurative language) attempt to persuade the reader? How successfully does Ferguson balance narrative storytelling with analytical argument?

Analyze Ferguson’s claim that the British Empire played a decisive role in creating modern globalization. How effective is the author’s use of economic evidence to support his claims about imperial benefits? What data or factors may he have overlooked?

How does Ferguson contrast settler colonies with other types of imperial rule? To what extent does Empire acknowledge the consequences of settler colonialism for Indigenous populations or downplay them?

How does religion intersect with other motives, such as commerce and governance, in Ferguson’s account of Victorian imperialism? Does the book critically assess or implicitly endorse missionary activity?

How does Ferguson reconcile the role of violence with his argument that the British Empire created global “order”? How does Empire explore the tensions between order and violence more generally?

In what ways does Ferguson challenge and redefine commonly held beliefs about the causes of imperial decline, and how convincing is this reinterpretation?

How does Ferguson’s interpretation of British rule in India compare with the portrayal of colonial relationships in E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India? Consider, in particular, Ferguson’s treatment of Indian agency against Forster’s depiction of Indian characters such as Dr. Aziz.