How to Hide an Empire: A Short History of the Greater United States

by Daniel Immerwahr

'Wry, readable and often astonishing ... nimbly combines breadth and sweep with fine-grained attention to detail. The result is a provocative and absorbing history of the United States' NEW YORK TIMES

For a country that has always denied having dreams of empire, the United States owns a lot of overseas territory.

America has always prided itself on being a champion of sovereignty and independence. We know it has spread its money, language and culture across the world – but we still think of it as a contained territory, framed by Canada above, Mexico below, and oceans either side. Nothing could be further from the truth.

How to Hide an Empire tells the story of the United States outside the United States – from nineteenth-century conquests like Alaska, Hawai‘i, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, to the catalogue of islands, archipelagos and military bases dotted around the globe over which the Stars and Stripes flies. Many are thousands of miles from the mainland; all are central to its history.

But the populations of these territories, despite being subject to America’s government, cannot vote for it; they have often fought America’s wars, but they do not enjoy the rights of full citizens. These forgotten episodes cast American history, and its present, in a revealing new light. The birth control pill, chemotherapy, plastic, Godzilla, the Beatles, the name America itself – you can’t understand the histories of any of thesewithout understanding territorial empire.

Full of surprises, and driven by an original conception of what empire and globalisation mean today, How to Hide an Empire is a major and compulsively readable work of history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Audiobook, The United States Of America, Historical

513 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 19, 2019

About the author

Daniel Immerwahr is an associate professor of history at Northwestern University and the author of Thinking Small: The United States and the Lure of Community Development, which won the Organization of American Historians’ Merle Curti Award. He has written for Slate, n+1, Dissent, and other publications.

Reviews

[Mehrsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. A must read. Seriously, go read it right now.

I grew up in the shadow of the US empire so I've always understood that the US was an empire, but it did occur to me at some point after I immigrated that no one here saw it that way. On the middle east, the story was that Middle Easterners just didn't understand or want democracy. The truth is that the empires (British, Russian and then US) kept taking out our elected leaders because they knew they would lose their oil monopolies. And each time they would say things like "those people aren't capable of self-governance" to justify it. This book is not about the middle east and that's my one criticism of the book. The book is about the ACTUAL territory (Hawaii, Alaska, Phillippines), but Empire can happen in many ways, including in direct or indirect control of installed dictators. Probably that was out of the scope of this book. Anyway, it's so good!

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

How many high school teachers in the US know how Guantanamo Bay came to be US territory? How many know that the Philippines was managed as a colony for 47 years? While I expect most know that Puerto Ricans are US citizens (even if they didn’t before Hurricane Maria) do they know that (or more importantly why) the independence movement activists shot at President Truman and later shot into the House of Representatives wounding 5 congressmen in 1954. Daniel Immerwahr brings this all into the light and explains why this “hidden” material is relevant for today.

The book begins with the westward expansion into “territories” and how they were managed like colonies. Immerwahr poses that they became incorporated as states when white settlers came to predominate. While the west was being settled, the US was claiming 94 islands for their guano (fertilizer) deposits.

Regarding the colonies the US received from Spain, Immerwahr put together what was hiding in plain sight: At the last minute, the US entered the long and bloody battles its colonies had been fighting against Spain, claimed victory and took over these outposts of the Spanish empire.

There is a lot of detail on the high handed US occupation of the Philippines. You learn how locals were overtly kept out of social clubs and kept from business and governing through less obvious means and how they were victims of a war between their American and later Japanese occupiers. You see the difference democracy makes through the top down story of Daniel Burnham in Manila/Baguio and the bottom up planning for Chicago. The story of MacArthur in the Philippines is mostly favorable. He appears in several sections of the book and the total portrait adds emotional weight to MacArthur’s famous “I shall return”.

Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship but not sovereignty in 1917, the meaning of which continues to be demonstrated. In the 1930’s Cornelius P Rhodes, much honored on the US mainland for cancer research, experimented Puerto Ricans in much the same way as Nazi’s experimented on those in their camps. In the 1940’s big landowners were paid and citizens removed from Vieques Island for military purposes. Just recently we see the difference in how victims of hurricanes in states are treated versus those in areas not fully incorporated as part of the nation.

With the background of the first 2/3 of the book Immerwahr concludes with an interpretive overview which he documents with more historical facts. He shows that technology reduced the need for colonies: The development of plastics replaced the need for raw materials; New means of communications decreased the need to locate radio equipment; The need for international standardization from everything from the common screw to specialized building equipment favored the existing standards in the US.

There are chapters on how the spread of English favored the US and how islands have been used and how they are now used. A chapter on the pervasive presence of US bases shows how those who benefited from them have turned on their “benefactor” for instance, the Beatles played in Liverpool clubs that would not exist were it not for the local military base; SONY benefited in many ways from the US occupation of Japan and most stunningly, Osama Bin Laden whose family wealth stemmed from the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

This book makes you aware of the “logo” map (the contiguous 48) of the US and the “pointillist” (all the territories, islands and bases) map. He demonstrates that while Americans are generally skeptical of empires, history of the US, is one of empire.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in history.

[K.J. Charles]

Tremendous look at the United States empire, and how it has somehow managed to convince itself, if nobody else, that it isn't an imperialist colonial power. There was a huge amount here I didn't know especially regarding the grotesque historical treatment and disenfranchisement of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, which might be because I'm British but it sounds like a lot of mainland USians don't know either.

Starts with the empire-building in what is now the mainland, moves on to the very relevant history of birdshit and the guano islands, lots about taking over Spanish colonial holdings and the effect especially of WW2, going up to the military bases in Saudi Arabia and how that led in to 9/11. But there's also a lot on other non-tangible empire building, especially standardisation (genuinely fascinating chapter) and language.

A really interesting read, exceedingly well written, with a lot of terrific human stories and some cracking jokes, even. Absolutely how non fiction should be done.

Read for the 'randos rec me 12 books' Twitter challenge, and a definite win.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Years ago, I read a book by one of the Chaser team called American Hoax. Anyway, in part that book had been written because while Firth was in the US he had been chatting with people about politics and he mentioned in passing the US empire. “Hey, hey, hey, whoa, you need to hold on up there a second buddy – we’re the land of the free, the home of the brave. We ain’t got no empire, uh, uhhh, no way, no siree … by golly, by jingo, by gee, by gosh, by gum.”

This came as something of a surprise to Chris Firth, and to me too as I was reading along. The idea that US citizens didn’t believe they had an empire, well, and that they could quote ee cummings, both seemed rather remarkable at the time. I suspect this little fact might come as something of a surprise most of the 95% of the world that are not citizens of the US. If you do decide to read this book, and you should read it, you should also consider reading the Blow Back Series. It focuses on some of the more recent issues raised here in much more depth.

This book is stunningly good. It is very clear and makes connections to the developments of science, technology and communications that fundamentally changed both the nature of war while also changing the nature of ‘empire’ building throughout the twentieth century. Those changes were particularly seen in how the physical control of populations became increasingly less relevant – and so the need for territorial expansion also diminished.

The book starts from the earliest days of the USA and follows its various imperial ambitions and realisations up to the present day. It is repeatedly said that this expansion was seen as pushing a splinter into the soul of the US. Throughout US history people have seen empire building as something that would ultimately destroy the republic.

I’m fascinated by how we use images to define ourselves. One of the images that is used to define the USA is its flag, of course. I hadn’t realised that there is a law requiring the flag to change if a new state is incorporated into the union. The other image that is immediately associated with the US, something that is also immediately recognisable across the globe, is the ‘logo map’ of the nation. And what is interesting about this logo is that it is not accurate. Not only does the image we have of the US in our minds only really include the mainland ‘from sea to shining sea’ (even if those seas are oceans), we also know that it should probably include Hawaii and Alaska too, as well as Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, and… which is the point of this book, if you see what I mean.

There’s a nice bit in this where the US decided to claim a series of islands in the Pacific, only to learn that they had claimed them as part of their territory a hundred odd years before – ‘oh, that old thing… I’d completely forgotten I ever even owned it’. As the people of Puerto Rico have been learning for a very long time, being a territory of the US can come at quite a price, even if people on the main land sometimes forget you are part of their nation. The histories of Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and other places under the protection of the US government often proved anything but cheerful. A lot of this history is catastrophic and barbaric. But this is all part of the US ‘taking up the white man’s burden’ – which was a poem written by Kipling to encourage the US in the Philippine-American War. The author discusses the water cure in this – something I read about years ago in a much more brutal account than is given here – with US soldiers literally jumping onto the stomachs of their prisoners after they had bloated them with water. But as the author says, even his less extreme version is reminiscent of the more modern ‘cure’ of water boarding. Love and marriage, torture and conquest…time passes, little changes.

The need for colonies more generally arose with confined European nations needing access to commodities that they simply did not have in their own lands. Especially important was rubber – which lead King Leopold of Belgium to provide Joseph Conrad with endless material for his novel, Heart of Darkness, something The Congo has yet to recover from. Because the US is so large, it also had ready-made access to many commodities – minerals, metals, and so on – that meant it was relatively independent for these from other nations. However, this was certainly not true of guano – the miracle fertiliser derived from bird shit. Gaining control of guano islands was therefore an essential part of early US expansion.

Where I found this book particularly interesting was in its discussion of the part played by restrictions upon the US in terms of access to natural products (rubber in particular) and how these restrictions encouraged production of synthetic versions of these that often ended up being better than the originals. But the other thing this did was to make it less necessary for the US to literally dominate countries in the ways the UK had with its empire (upon which, the sun never set). As the case of the Philippines made clear, the US could have a territory while the average US citizen in the street of logo map USA wouldn’t have a clue. But controlling these territories often proved more effort than the US was happy to expend.

I can’t say that Douglas MacArthur comes out of this book smelling of roses – his return to liberate the Philippines (and his being forced out in the first place) read like bizarre stuff ups of the worst kind.

What became clear as planes and technologies improved, was that you could build an empire, and control the world, without engaging in very much territorial expansion at all. Territory was often difficult to conquer and even harder to hold – whereas, modern technology, especially planes, radio communication, and more recently drones, have meant that you can build pointillist empires. An island here, a military base there, an airfield over the other side of that, and your friends and enemies can be kept in place and trade routes maintained and everything can be kept both hunky and dory.

This book similarly brings in the idea of the role the US has played in making English a world language and the nature of globalisation when you can make the rules (and then ignore them when you like). That is, when you are the mono-pole of a global power system.

Whether or not the US empire proves to be overreach, whether blow back ever becomes so intense that even US citizens start to notice the legacy of their empire, or if peak oil eventually makes pointillist empires no longer viable and therefore forces empire builders back towards territorial expansion are things we will have to watch and see. This is a fascinating book, one I highly recommend – but read the Blow Back ones too.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was reading about medical colonialism and I thought of this book.

===========

This book is a lucidly written, very absorbing account of imperial U.S. that the usual ignorant America First people don't want to hear. They're unwilling to own up to our mistakes, so are doomed to repeat them. You will not find most of this in American history books.

=============

The collapse of Spain’s beleaguered empire placed the whole Philippine archipelago in President McKinley’s surprised hands. What to do? Return the islands to Spain? Sell them? Leave them be?

“I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight,” McKinley explained to an audience of churchmen, “and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.”

He doubted that Filipinos could govern themselves. He thus saw only one option: take the Philippines, “educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them...."

The siege of Manila— undertaken jointly by the U.S. Army and the Philippine Army of Liberation— ended when Spain surrendered the city to the United States alone. After U.S. troops entered the city, locking out their comrades in arms, McKinley issued his declaration. There would be “no joint occupation with the insurgents,” and the Filipinos “must recognize the military occupation and authority of the United States.”

Prostitutes raced to Manila from Russia, Romania, Austria, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, and Japan. It was the sex-work equivalent of a gold rush.

McKinley’s government signed its treaty with Spain to buy the Philippines for $20 million.

The ensuing guerrilla warfare played to the insurgency's strengths: knowledge of the land and the popularity of the cause. “Insurrectos,” as they were called, could ambush U.S. patrols, hide their weapons, and then melt into the populace. (Sound familiar?)

This conflict inspired Kipling's now infamous poem, "The White Man's Burden: An Address to the United States" that began this way....

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."

General Arthur MacArthur (father of the WW II general who would become famous) headed up the war against the insurgents. After the 1900 re-election of McKinley, MacArthur issued a fresh set of military directives. Captured insurgents could be killed. Towns supporting them could be destroyed (the preferred method was burning). The soldiers showed no hesitance in carrying out these orders given that they looked down on the "gugu" (a predecessor word to "gook") as less than human. Torture included a form of water boarding. The farms failed. Disease spread. About 775,000 Filipinos died because of the war.

The slaughter continued in southern Philippines where troops, led by Teddy Roosevelt's comrade commander from Cuba, Leonard Wood, wiped out every man, woman and child of the Moros. They had fled to the top of a volcano called Bud Dajo where a thousand innocents were destroyed by machine guns. It became known as the Bud Dajo Massacre of 1906. Donald Trump would reference it approvingly during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

So we must ask: was this McKinley's idea of Christianizing the Philippines?

===========

Re: Woodrow Wilson from the book....

There was a dark side to Wilson’s Southern identity. He was not just a son of the South in general, but the son of a Southern pastor who had defended slavery by writing a pamphlet titled Mutual Relation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible. It was a worldview that Wilson never entirely shook off. As president of Princeton, he stood against admitting black students.

These were not casual opinions. They formed a large part of the fifth volume of his History of the American People (1902). Reviewers admired Wilson’s history, yet they couldn’t help but notice the author’s fondness for the Klu Klux Klan, an organization whose mission, in Wilson’s words, was “to protect the southern country from some of the ugliest hazards of a time of revolution.”

Wilson scolded Klan members for being hotheaded, yet he defended their motives. They were acting, he wrote, out of “the mere instinct of self-preservation.” That was how Thomas Dixon Jr., Wilson’s close friend and former classmate, saw the Klan, too. Dixon wrote his own work on this theme, a novel entitled The Clansman, which was quickly adapted into a stage play. In 1915 Dixon and the director D. W. Griffith used the novel as the basis for a film, The Birth of a Nation. It was an epic history about the South’s redemption by the Ku Klux Klan. And it quoted Wilson’s historical writings in its title cards.

==================.

When it came to the nationalists of the colonized world, there is no evidence that Wilson even read their many petitions. Nguyen (Ho Chi Minh) the Patriot got no response from Wilson. The only nationalist leader from outside Europe who won Wilson’s ear in Paris was Jan Smuts, soon to be the South African prime minister, who sought an international system that would bolster the white control of southern Africa. Smuts got what he wanted. The empire survived, and all the victors’ colonies were left intact. The defeated powers’ colonies, instead of being liberated, were redistributed among the victors.

The Japanese delegation asked to at least insert language about racial equality into the League of Nations covenant. This proposal had a majority of votes behind it— the French delegation deemed the cause “indisputable.” But Wilson blocked it, refusing to let even the principle of racial equality stand.

========

The author has performed an excellent service in his accounts of the truth about the Philippines and Woodrow Wilson, as summarized above, that are routinely left out of Texas-approved textbooks that are used in numerous states.

But I was surprised by an absence of an account in this book of what happened in Hawaii, which I learned from researching a book of my own.

The Christian missionaries (from the Puritan Congregationalist sect) arrived in 1820 with a plan to convert “the natives.” In the process, they persuaded the King to privatize the land, an act that would prove disastrous for Hawaiians.

The locals did not have the money to buy the land, but foreigners did. They snapped up as much private property as they could. (Within a few decades, foreigners would own up to 90% of the private land).

This land grab opened the way for the establishment of sugar plantations built and run by many of the grandsons of the missionaries. They became the sugar barons.

These plantations needed cheap labor. The barons first hired locals who had been impoverished from privatization. But soon the barons were importing labor that included Chinese, Filipino and Japanese. But a lack of immunity of the locals made them susceptible to the diseases the immigrants brought with them: measles, cholera, venereal disease, smallpox and leprosy.

The local population, estimated to be at 300,000 at the time of the arrival of Captain Cook in the late 18tth century, dropped to about 40,000 by the end of the 19th.

The sugar barons and other whites became the owning class of Hawaii. As with Manila, the U.S. government coveted Honolulu as a naval base and trading port. In a military coup, sponsored by the sugar barons, the local government was overthrown and the king forced out. The U.S. got their port.

After taking complete control, including all land belonging to the crown, Hawaii was fully annexed in 1898 with the approval of President McKinley. A grandson of Congregationalist missionaries, Sanford Dole (also a relative of the pineapple baron-to-be, James Dole) became the first president of the territory.

=====

Native Hawaiians still haven't been compensated....

https://www.propublica.org/article/th...

======

Toward the end of the book, the author gives some space to a relative of his, Fritz Haber, an eminent scientist. Ultimately, it's a story of science as a two-edged sword.

https://www.theglobalist.com/seven-bi...

[Sunny Lu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Endlessly gagged

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

The United States consists of 50 states and 16 territories. It could have been larger. The Philippines was once a US colony, and the US occupied Japan, South Korea, and West Germany post-WWII. However, the Philippines was granted independence, and the latter nations were not annexed. Why? According to Immerwahr, indigenous anti-colonial fervour and technological developments—e.g., aviation, synthetic materials, wireless communication—made contiguous territory redundant. A "pointillist empire" sufficed, where only small pieces of territory are required to project power. The US consequently has 800 bases dotted around the globe.

Many people are not aware of the US' enduring colonial history—those in the territories are citizens or residents without voting rights. The US fought several wars of annexation and annihilation to achieve 'Manifest Destiny,' eventually incorporating most territories as states, making them part of a nation rather than an empire. But is it hidden? I do not think so. It was simply not widely broadcast and was masked in US anti-colonial rhetoric (this had some credence post-WWII when they had the opportunity to colonise vanquished foes). US imperialism is often taken as a given, and its military projection—including its nuclear umbrella—is taken for granted by allies.

This book is illuminating, particularly in its treatment of US imperialism pre-WWII. However, its historiography declines when analysing events post-WWII—e.g., making literary analyses comparing island bases with James Bond stories. It also doesn't adequately explain the US' anti-colonial sentiment, which figures like Franklin Roosevelt held and indubitably influenced the collapse of European empires post-war. Moreover, Immerwahr mentions that Australia "looked a lot like a US colony" as it turned to the US for military protection following the fall of Singapore. Referring to Australia as a "US colony" is too offhand; US suzerainty is more accurate.

[David Dinaburg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has a Sesame Street vibe. Wait, stop, you know I don’t mean that as a pejorative so don’t scrunch up your face quite yet. See, if you come into How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States without a lot of prior knowledge, it’s super engrossing. Like when you are a kid watching Sesame Street, capisce? You’re extremely entertained by Cookie Monster and then it’s over and you sit up and say, “Oh snap, I know how to count now!” Just swap Cookie Monster for Northern Marianas OSHA loopholes and a toddler’s youthful curiosity with my poor historical understanding of U.S. geopolitical imperialism.

This is kids’ stuff, as in we should really teach this stuff to kids. I knew precisely zero percent of it. There is a one-hundred percent chance I went into this book being able to name more Pokémon than past or present U.S. territories. I mean, sure, there are functionally hundreds more Pokémon, but I’m talking percentages here. Even ten percent of Pokemon are like, eighty. Eighty Pokémon rattling around in my head before I realized Puerto Rico—the only territory-status-location I knew beforehand because of the NYC Diaspora—had a friend named Guam.

Speaking of Guam, I still know almost nothing about Guam, the mystery island of the book. I would have liked to hear more about Guam. Tell me more about Guam, book. Add a Guam chapter please. Guamanians are fellow American citizens, which, again, is something I learned way after it was embarrassing. Post-embarrassment. Wrapped back around to where I'm okay writing a paragraph about my ignorance. Can we get Guam and Puerto Rico in as states during my lifetime, please?

One of the blurbs on the back or the flap calls the book “conversational” and I assumed that was lit-press nonsense: how can you can take a dense or academic subject matter and make it conversational when “conversational” in non-fiction almost exclusively applies to those fly-on-the-wall stories loosely cobbled together from emails and interviews and eventually turned into an HBO miniseries? But it was apt. It was apt! I’m really surprised by how approachable the text is, which is honestly....great. I spend most of my reviews deriding simplicity for its inherent tedium, but I’m here to learn, dude. Make it clear.

And this book did! Grandiloquent phrasing would be so much chaff to pull apart. Things are conversational, easy. It even made me actually laugh out loud a few times:

Standards—the protocols by which objects and processes are coordinated—are admittedly one of the most stultifying topics known to humankind. A sample of headlines from the journal Industrial Standardization gives a sense of the exquisite heights to which boredom can be taken:

Industry Approves Recommended List of Paper Sizes
New Law Requires Labels for Wool
Brochure Tells About Building Coordination
Revision of List of Recommended Paper Sizes

A callback gets laughs from me, any time.

And there’s nuance beyond internal allusion—the fancy way to say callback, I believe—in the writing, too. Example: Before you even crack the spine, you can tell you’re getting a work in the vein of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, because the subtitle is A History of the Greater United States, not The History of the Greater United States, even though it is the only history of the territories of the United States non-scholars are going to scoop up this summer.

So if you’re trying to decide whether to read this book, the answer is definitely yes do it. If you want a direct thesis sentence to help you, here it is:

[G]lobalization, in turn, depended on key technologies devised or perfected by the U.S. military during the Second World War. These were, like synthetics, empire-killing technologies, in that they helped render colonies unnecessary. They did so by making movement easier without direct territorial control.

That’s pretty much it. I can’t summarize how we got here, because that’s the book’s job, dude. Go read it. It's fun (and also horrifying). You'll learn things (horrifying things). What else is there?

Oh, and Empire is one of the only books of recent vintage that my dad and I picked up independently and simultaneously, though he likely came to it a Mr. Hooper to my Ernie. Which is to say that I, the neophyte and he, the seasoned vet, both found it worth reading. With appeal that wide, then even a Grouch like you might like it.

[Wick Welker · Rating 5 out of 5]

The United States is in everyone's backyard.

This is a sweeping and scholarly work which sticks to its guns to prove a very poignant fact about the United States: it was created as an empire and continues to operate as such today. In How to Hide an Empire, Immerwahr provides a jaw-dropping account of how the American empire was formed soon after WWII and how that empire has taken on a modern day transformation where it sells itself as an egalitarian democracy but is actually a pointillistic empire spread across the world.

First we explore the vast American territories that America controlled around WWII. We commemorate the Peal Harbor bombings but all seem to forget that this was a coordinated attack on other American territories that day, namely the Philippines and other territories. We don't commemorate those attacks because we don't consider those territories to be American soil--only they were. America had territory in the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, American Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. After WWII, these territories were literally treated as social, medical and architectural testing grounds with the fraction of the oversight if they occurred on the mainland. The Philippines had a white apartheid where American business ventures went to boom and die with no benefit to the native population. 1.7 M people died in WWII in the Philippines, the majority were Filipino. This is the worst death toll on American soil ever. Ever heard of it? I hadn't. The American empire was interested in the land of these territories but not the people of these territories. Sounds very familiar today.

When it was discovered that hook worm was widespread in Puerto Rico, it was suggested that the high population density of such a "degenerate" people was the cause and that a culling of the population was the only cure. However, anti-parasites were tested on the people with no oversight, including blatant genocide by physicians, and the medication was created of which all benefited. From brith control to female sterilization, these crimes were perpetrated on Puerto Ricans of which we all benefit today. Immerwahr goes on and on with the atrocious accounts of grave crimes against humanity that occurred in all of these territories: martial law in Hawaii where executions occurred regularly, Japanese interment camps in Alaska with zero oversight. Examples abound.

And then something curious happened after WWII: for the first time in the history of the world, a world power gave up its territories. They were "returned" to their native people. Why? The answer is that a modern global empire looks very different today than ancient times. While America gave up land, it strung itself up with military bases absolutely everywhere. This completely changed warfare. American was suddenly in everyone's back door prompting social upheaval and recalcitrance everywhere. America found it too costly to its mainland empire to maintain territories while denying representation to the sovereign population and squashing rebellions was (like in Puerto Rico and elsewhere). Thus America became the pointillist empire.

Vast development in material technology, like plastic and rubber, enabled America to no longer be resource driven and released their grasp on most of these territories while still having bases there to mobilize and continue its global warcraft. Aviation completely changed the law of geo politics. The US maintained its empire by codifying standards for everything--from screws to instruments and to stop signs. The greatest achievement of the American empire is ensuring that English is the dominant language of politics, coding, the internet and academia. America has achieved an astonishing cultural empire that the world has never before seen.

9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. The naive question: "why do they hate us?" has a simple answer: it was retaliation for American pointillistic empire strung across the Middle East. There are 30 extra national Non-US bases in the world. There are 800 American bases around the world. <-Read that again.

This book was phenomenal. Well researched and incredibly accurate. I learned a ton. Highly recommend.

Similar books I'd recommend:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The Jakarta Method
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Elyse · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book made me feel somewhat ignorant. I could write a 5000 word review filling it with things I just learned. For example, I didn't know the Philippines was a U.S. territory from 1898-1946. That's almost 50 years. How could I not know that? Filipinos in this time period were U.S. nationals but never U.S. citizens. In contrast, people in Puerto Rico have been citizens since 1917 (just in time to be drafted into World War I). I knew about Puerto Rico being a territory (still) and Puerto Ricans being citizens but I never knew about the Philippines. I'm almost too embarrassed to write this.

How to Hide an Empire took me months to read. Mainly because there was so much new information for me to absorb. I finally understand Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Spanish-American War had more effect on U.S. history than I ever imagined. And not especially in a good way. I feel much better educated now that I've read this book.

[Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE.
Most histories begin their studies of the American empire with an account of the Spanish-American War (1898), for it was the result of victory in that conflict that America gained ownership of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. But is that the origin of the American empire as these studies seem to indicate? Daniel Immerwahr says no.

He makes the case that America’s empire building began over a century earlier. He traces the empire’s origins to March 10, 1776 when Daniel Boone led a band of trailblazers through the Cumberland Gap into what became known as Kentucky (Note the date; it is just a few months before the thirteen colonies declared their independence from Great Britain.) After the Revolutionary War more than 200,000 pioneers eventually followed Boone’s Trail, later called the Wilderness Road, into Kentucky.

This was how the American empire began – and it continued to grow. After the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) America’s boundaries extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Canada to the Rio Grande. The expansion of the empire to this point had been completed a half century before the Spanish-American War was fought.

But do Americans consider what occurred before the Spanish-American War to be a case of empire building? The evidence is that most do not – and that is one of the reasons why Immerwahr’s book is titled How to Hide an Empire, an empire that once included the Philippines, and still includes Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as the North American continent west of the Appalachians, along with Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, and the Guano Islands, which was the most hidden part of the empire.

CONNECTIONS.
One journalist wrote in his review of the book that it was “meandering, but never boring.” I wish that I had thought of that, because that is exactly my response. The meandering quality is part of the charm of what is a well-written, thoroughly researched history of the American empire.

Immerwahl is an historian, but he is also an accomplished storyteller who possesses a wry sense of humor, loves pop culture references, and is a master of connections. He introduces a subject that relates to his thesis, but soon begins meandering by introducing ramifications, reverberations, and connections that may even surprise informed readers who are familiar with his starting point.

One of the most interesting stories that he tells begins with the Guano Islands and ends with the Holocaust.

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT GUANO BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK.
The above is not my title, but is Immerwahl’s title for a chapter on the significance of bird guano for 19th century agriculture. All I can say is that he told me more than I always wanted to know, but in the process he bedazzled me with the way that he was able to connect a number of earthshaking events to bird guano.

The demand for bird guano as agricultural fertilizer led to the following developments:

*the U.S. claim to almost a hundred uninhabited, desert islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean;

*the invention of a process by a German-Jewish scientist to synthesize ammonia, a nitrogen compound, that replaced bird guano as an agricultural fertilizer;

*during WWI the scientist suggested that ammonia could be used for explosives and he also developed the process of manufacturing poison gas that was used as a weapon against the Allied nations;

*after the war he developed a promising insecticide that was used to kill his fellow Jews in gas chambers – including some of his wife’s relatives;

*the scientist’s wife’s maiden name was Immerwahl, and her cousin was the author’s grandfather.

This is only a bare sketch of one example of the author’s modus operandi which is meandering, but never boring.

[Joe Pickert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm struggling to describe how I found a book that I largely agreed with politically to be so frustrating. Maybe we can start with what Immerwahr got right. His coverage of the essential emergence of US Empire in the wake of the Spanish-American War was excellent, as was his tracing of its origin to the nation's settler-colonial roots. Additionally, many of the personal vignettes and press clippings he included were insightful and taught me a lot about the evolution of America's understanding of itself in relation to its imperial subjects. Overall, he did a respectable job in presenting a broad overview of a complex topic that is imminently approachable for readers who might be new or even hostile to the concept of the United States as an empire.

But what his account utterly lacks is any kind of attempt to explore the deeper, structural implications that Empire has had on this country's past and present. As with most liberal critiques, Immerwahr's condemnation of US Empire never comes close to framing it as a foundational and inextricable aspect of this country's entire existence. It takes the first tentative step towards naming the problem without attempting to elucidate its full implications. Just as with privatized healthcare and police violence, imperialism is something that can simply be "reformed" around the edges without the need for profound social change and redistributional policy making.

In Immerwarh's view, the US has already made great strides in devolving its imperial apparatus by granting home rule and other forms of autonomy to former colonial holdings. Now, if only we could reduce the number of our military bases and grant statehood to Puerto Rico, the United States would be Empire-free, totally absolved of its historical sins and ready to look itself in the mirror as the true bastion of democracy and international goodwill we're propagandized to believe that it is
(don't mind the entire international monetary structure, world-governing institutions, or usurious dollar-dominated debt that we've imposed on the Third World; Immerwarh doesn't even consider these elements of Empire worthy of comment).

I'll end with an excerpt that I believe perfectly captures the tepidness and maddening limitations to this book's critique. This comes as the closing two paragraphs of Chapter 14: Decolonizing the United States:

"Fong and Inouye [the first Senators from the US state of Hawaii] proved to be, just as white supremacists feared, champions of civil rights. And had the segregationists gazed farther into the future, they would have been still more troubled by something else taking place in Hawai'i at the time.

Nineteen fifty-nine was the year of statehood. The next year, 1960, a Kenyan student met a Kansan one in the Russian class at the University of Hawaii. The two married - an interracial marriage regarded as illegal in two dozen states at the time - and had a son, who would grow up partly in Hawai'i, partly in Indonesia. In typical Hawaiian fashion, his profoundly multiracial extended family would grow by marriage to incorporate African American, British, Lithuanian, Indonesian, Malaysian, and Chinese elements. And in 2009, that son, Barack Obama, would become the first black president of the United States."

Give me a break dude. This shit reads just like an Albert Einstein copypasta.

Does he detail Barack Obama's role in drastically escalating our practice of drone warfare, or his personal culpability for the murder and maiming of countless thousands of innocent civilians? Of course not. Does he describe how the international campaigns of destabilization and coups carried out under his command paved the way for comprador governments amenable to unrestricted US business activity or, in the case of Syria and Libya, the utter destruction of any sovereign, central governing authority? Nope. But it makes for a cutesy little anecdote that leaves the reader feeling better about this whole, sordid business. At least something good came out of the colonization of Hawaii, right? Just like racism, all those crimes are safely in the past. Empire, too, must surely be far behind us.

[Brady Billiot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy shit holy shit so good
Should be required reading in every US highschool and for every US citizen. I’d happily read an entire book on every individual topic discussed in this. I learned so much and want to learn so much more. GO READ THIS

[Devyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received this book from Goodreads.

"In the end, this book's main contribution is not archival, bringing to light some never-before-seen document. It's perspectival, seeing a familiar history differently." page 16

A brilliant book!
How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States is a must read for anyone interested in obscure American history and the revolutionary switch from annexing territory for resources, to divesting large colonies and investing in military bases around the globe.

I consider myself well read in American history, but this book opened my eyes to a surprising amount of unknown material on almost every chapter.

What an absolute pleasure to read something new on a continuously regurgitated subject.

There is simply to much information crammed neatly into this 528 page book to name all of the facts and figures that blew my history-loving freaking mind, so I plan to share only a few on my favorites.

1857 America annexed small islands throughout the Caribbean and the Pacific for "white gold". Guano. Soil amendments for soil exhaustion. Bird poop held more importance than salt.

Use of the term America instead of United States in 1898. The anthems changed, too: no longer "Columbia, the Gem of the ocean," but "America the Beautiful" and God Bless America."

Mustard gas testing on humans. Mostly Puerto Ricans pulled from the colony and considered disposable.
Famous pathologist, oncologist, and hospital administrator Cornelius P. Rhoads history of developing and using chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, on peoples from the colonies and it's cover up in the mainland. "It was totally just shocking to us to receive this barrage of communications from people in Puerto Rico out of the blue," said the CEO of AACR. Even the donner who's funded the award hadn't known of Rhoads Puerto Rican legacy.

June 1942 japan invaded Dutch Harbor Alaska and conquered the Aleutian islands. The Japanese occupied the islands for more than a year and transported the tiny population to japan as prisoners of war. Half of them died there.

The great standardizer Herbert Hoover, who effectively standardized America. Thanks to him, traffic lights have all the same rules and "Now the half-inch nuts screw into all the half-inch bolts."

After WW2 America made the revolutionary switch from annexing territories for resources after successfully inventing synthetic materials that made large, expensive, hard to defend colonies unnecessary.

"The United States, in other words, did not abandon empire after the Second World War. Rather, it reshuffled its imperial portfolio, divesting itself of large colonies and investing in military bases, tiny specks of semi-sovereignty strewn around the globe."

The history of the United States is the history of empire.

[Patrick Greeley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I dunno about this one, man. The first half is a good history of US expansionism. Lots of information about America’s colonial relationship with the Philippines and Puerto Rico, as well as some interesting stuff about the guano trade. Then it hits the 20th century and things start to fall apart.

The author goes on tangents only loosely connected to the American empire. Did we need all those pages about the founding of Sony? Probably not. Especially when Vietnam is only mentioned in passing. Also absent? Any reference to CIA-backed coups, the petrodollar, or sanctions as an economic weapon. Overall, I was disappointed at the lack of any real diagnosis of the modern incarnation of empire. Maybe I should have looked for a book called How To Hide A Hegemony?

I read an excerpt recently from a paper on how much wealth has been extracted from the global south over the past 40 years. Yes, American influence on the standardization of screws in the 50s is important but maybe dedicate some pages to that?

Whatever.

[solomiya · Rating 3 out of 5]

is it me or is the entire second half of this book had very little do to with its premise? it could’ve been half its size and none of the points would’ve been lost.

[Sahitya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surely a 4.5 but just fell short of a full 5 star rating.

I’m not someone who knows much of American history - we obviously didn’t need to study it in school and whatever I’ve gleaned through in the past few years has been by watching documentaries, tv shows or reading fiction inspired by true historical events. Even in those cases, I have probably read more about WWII because the Holocaust is one of the most horrific events that I’ve come to know perpetrated by design by one evil man. As far as American history is concerned, I know about important events and key figures related to the Civil war and the civil rights movement, but not much more. So, why did I pick up this book? I have no idea. I just read one glowing review on Goodreads and decided to give it a try. And whatever I was expecting it to be, it surpassed all my expectations.

The one common refrain we always hear is that history books are boring. And this book is most definitely written by a history professor. But boring it ain’t. While I hoped that it would be interesting enough that I can read it slowly over the course of a week or two, I didn’t expect it to suck me into it so wholly that I managed to complete in just three sittings. The author writes in such an accessible manner with lots of anecdotes and dry humor that you can’t help but enjoy it. Particularly, the first half to two thirds of the book is very engrossing - the details of the events the author is describing are truly horrific and I was frankly appalled that I didn’t know any of it. However, what is more appalling is that this actual history of the United States is nowhere taught in its schools. Americans might very well proclaim (and even believe in their hearts) that they are a nation built out of anti-imperialist notions, and by virtue of literally erasing all this history from their textbooks ensure that this image stays intact, but the fact is, US has been an empire and colonized millions of people since the late 19th century and continues to do so till this day.

There are many important chapters of history that the author decides to talk about, but the two which get most page time are Philippines and Puerto Rico. While I had some idea that PR is still a colony of the US and has no representation in Congress while being very dependent on federal aid, I knew nothing about how it came to be so. And I literally had no clue that Philippines, a country in Asia was colonized by the US for around 47 years. The years of oppression, the wars and massacres that were raged to quell any rebellions and exploitation of resources reads like any standard imperial fare (I’ve read enough about British in India to see the similarities) - it’s just surprising to read because we never talk about US in the same vein as British while discussing colonization.

What was truly horrific and revolting to read about was the illegal and unethical experiments that so-called pioneers of American medicine conducted on their colonial subjects, with no regard for their consent because they didn’t care about “those” people. Forced sterilizations, experimenting the initial versions of the birth control pill (with highly adverse side effects), deliberately not giving medicine to some patients to determine how they fare, and airdropping mustard gas on thousands of people to understand its effect on humans - these are not so dissimilar to what Josef Mengele did - but while one is the infamous Angel of Death, other is the father of Chemotherapy. I guess this is what it means when we say history is written by the victors.

The latter half of the book deals more with how the nature of imperialism changed after WWII and technological advances made during the war enabled it to take the form of globalization. I was utterly fascinated by the chapters about how American standards became the norm across the world in every field and ISO came to be, and the rise of English as the global connecting language. Some might think this was actually good and only happened because of “free market capitalism” and not forced on anybody, but when one country controls more than 60% of the manufacturing economy of the world, the leverage it holds is enormous and what other countries do to appease it is just pragmatism and not enthusiastic acceptance. One very stark fact that reiterates it is that while all countries across the world decided to adhere to many US standards, US still separates itself from everyone by refusing to use the metric system. This may also seem trivial to Americans because they are used to believing they are the best at everything, but as an Indian, the fear of losing our languages and ultimately our culture to the hegemony of English isn’t really that unfounded.

The last section of the book about the pointillist empire is where I lost interest a little. The author rightly points out that the more than 800 US bases across the world make it an empire even now, albeit just a different kind but he doesn’t go into much detail. We only get to know a little about the military bases in Japan as well the initial ones in Saudi Arabia, which eventually and very unexpectedly led to the rise of Japan as a tough industrial competitor to the US; and the accumulation of wealth by the bin Laden family and then using it to fight against the US which facilitated that wealth in the first place. The author also points out little known facts about how Guantanamo bay came to be which eventually led to its use as a detention facility, as well as the loopholes in law which led to exploitation of labor in Northern Mariana Islands even though they were by right US citizens. The author refrains from going into much detail about any of these though, and also only makes cursory references to all the wars the US has fought in after WWII. I guess this was done to limit the size of an already big book, but it just gave a feeling that some important events were glossed over.

Wow did I go on quite a rant in this review. I didn’t even realize I had so much to say. To conclude, I just want to mention that this book is well written and very readable for anyone, whether you know anything about US history or not. Even if you usually find history books boring, I promise that this is very engrossing and enjoyable, mostly due to the author’s excellent storytelling skills. And if you are someone who is interested to know more about the usually hidden and unknown parts of American history, you should definitely give this a try. It’ll surely surprise you. And I think it’s important to know this history but ignorance of it can only lead to mistakes in the future.

[Lauren]

▫️ HOW TO HIDE AN EMPIRE: A History of the Greater United States by Daniel Immerwahr, 2019.

"What kind of government is this?" asked one of the soldiers. "What are we that scream piously, 'the world must be free', then keep it to ourselves?" [US solider protesting the Army's orders, in Manila, Philippines, January 1946]

This outstanding history opens with the deliberate word choice made by Franklin Roosevelt to describe the events of December 7th, 1941 to the US public. Pearl Harbor - Yes, but a few hours after there was an even more devastating attack and occupation of the Philippines, which was ALSO a US "territory" (read: colony) at the time. WHY THE ERASURE? The deliberate removal, even when early drafts showed that his undersecretary included Philippines, Guam and Hawai'i... WHY the non-action?

This book attempts to answer these questions in a myriad of ways. WHY + HOW. Stepping back to the early 1800s, Immerwahr traces settler colonization of "Indian Country" (actually the name on official maps of the time), through early overseas acquisitions and spoils or war, to the prominent discussion of statehood versus territory, and globalization.

For lack of time and space, and for want of writing about TEN more posts on this book's topic (I'll spare you that... But I could 🤓), I'll give some highlights of topics discussed at length in this history:

- Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands
- Panama Canal
- Very dark history of medical experimentation on colonized peoples
- "Language is a Virus" - on English language primacy and cultural imperialism
- "Pointilist empire" and "Baselandia" - military bases as colonialism
- Japanese economics in the 1980s/1990s
- Imperial standardization of weights, measures, and logistics
- Modern imperialism - "Birther-ism" and xenophobia

📚 So much more. If you want to read and understand colonialism / decolonization, and you crave highest quality historical research, I cannot recommend this book enough. The book is academic, YET very readable and accessible.

"At various times, inhabitants of the U.S. Empire have been shot, shelled, starved, interned, dispossessed, tortured, and experimented on. What they haven't been, by and large, is SEEN."

[charlotte, · Rating 2 out of 5]

Actual rating 2.5

If I had to characterise How to Hide an Empire, I would go with that guy on twitter the other week who said he’d prefer the USA did no imperialism, but if they had to, he doesn’t mind it being the colonisation of Greenland because that’s “small and less harmful”. You think I’m lying? Weeks later and he hasn’t even deleted it!



All this to say, this is the vibes that How to Hide an Empire gave. Not anti-imperialist in the least. Liberal imperialist, more likely. And yet, still a compelling and informative read.

Having learnt my lesson regarding making claims as to the length of reviews, when “I don’t have much to say” becomes 1200 words, I make no such claims here. This could get to be a long one. Apologies in advance (and for the meandering nature of this review).

The book splits into two parts, bisected by World War II, and it would be fair to say that one of those two parts is better by far than the other. Nevertheless, it took me only about three chapters in to get the distinct feeling that nothing about this one was anti-imperialist. That wasn’t necessarily the worst thing: for me, a history book about the USA’s empire and its evolution does not have to be anti-imperialist so long as it’s not blatantly pro-imperialist. And this one did not shy away from US imperial actions, to the extent that it explicitly described them. It’s not like those weirdo imperialist historians we have in the UK where they’re always blathering on about we shouldn’t be ashamed of the empire, no no, we should be proud for all it did. But I’ve digressed: I was trying to explain the political position of this book.

In part one, we follow the expansion of the nascent United States into colonising the lands towards the west of the country. It starts quite late on in the story — mid-19th century — so there’s a lot here we don’t see, which becomes a pattern. Part one is where I feel this book was at its strongest. It was a straightforward relation of history, presented from the angle of the U.S. growing its empire and some of the forces for and against this. It was mostly compelling and a lot of it, information I hadn’t read about before. There was little analysis, sure, and, as I said, a fair few gaps in the narrative — it dwells a lot on the Philippines and Puerto Rico, with occasional dips into Cuba, while almost entirely avoiding Haiti, Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska, but for a few mentions — but it’s a lot of history there and if you were to go in depth in everything, you would struggle for the book not to be bloated. But it sets the scene well enough.

The second half of the book is where it started to lose me. The primary issue here is the way in which those gaps in the narrative became great gaping holes. Here is my incomplete (off the top of my head) list of those:

— the Korean War (brief mentions only);
— the Vietnam War (brief mentions only);
— the IMF and the World Bank (zip, zilch, nada);
— the CIA in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America (this one alone covers a multitude of events, of which we get brief mentions of the Iran-Contra affair and the 1954 coup in Guatemala).

Now, I will stick my hand up and admit that I’ve not read an enormous deal of anti-imperialist literature, nor very much about U.S. interventionism ( Washington Bullets and The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World — highly recommended, though. Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts, and the Death of Freedom also great regarding the finance side), but it only takes a patchy knowledge of the history to start poking at this one like, you’re not exactly telling the whole story here. Again, I get it, the whole story makes for a book that’s at least twice the length, but your partial story is not better. Your partial story obscures a lot more.

The thing is, the gaping holes here are ones on which an alternative explanation than offered might hang. Post-WWII, How to Hide an Empire’s narrative pivots, as you would expect. Now, a simplified version of this history (in my opinion) might well include the way colonialism, too, pivots, such that it is no longer really about the possession of territories and colonies and becomes something new. Something we might call, for ease, neo-colonialism. Our new little concept regards the control of another state by indirect means. Do you see where I’m (slightly facetiously) going here? But How to Hide an Empire behaves as though it’s never heard the term before, while also describing some aspects of the term to a T. How else would you characterise the whole chapter on standardisation and how the U.S. standard was pushed on everyone, world over? Immerwahr describes Japan’s dependence on the U.S. economy while occupied, or Puerto Rico’s dependence that led to a rejection of full independence, but fails to note that these examples are a paradigm for neo-colonialism. The U.S. does not have to physically be in the region to indirectly control it. That’s the entire point.

This is also where the great gaping hole that is no mention of the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund rears its head. As empire becomes less about the physical boots-on-the-ground colonies, money comes into play. Vulture Capitalism, mentioned before, has a very good rundown of this, but what it comes down to is U.S. hegemony and control of international finance systems, and its denial of aid and assistance, or even outright threat, coups, and so on, to countries who didn’t fall in line with the U.S. brand of capitalism. I think it’s very interesting that this book can skirt so close by discussing an issue which almost exactly parallels what I’ve described (that’s standardisation of screw threads by the way), but then doesn’t make the leap. Similarly, in part one, we get mention of gunboat diplomacy and extortionate tariffs, and anyone with any brain can see the thread linking this to current IMF/World Bank control. Except, it seems, Immerwahr.

Let me bring it back to considering a definition of colonialism and/or imperialism because it’s very central to the book and any success it might have in its proposed aims. Because this is a book that refuses to utilise the term neo-colonialism, we are stuck wondering exactly what’s involved in Immerwahr’s definition of imperialism. Certainly, he seems to believe that, to be imperialist, colonies must be possessed. On page 216, the U.S. is described as becoming “less interested in formal empire”, which would have been a good point to pause and ask, what is this book going to consider an empire? Colonies? Bases in hundreds of different countries, with long or indefinite leases paying a pittance, where U.S. citizens are not subject to that country’s laws and have immunity from them, even? Immerwahr concludes that this latter is not colonialism, although it still constitutes empire. He admits it “could feel like” colonialism, but denies that it is. This feels like a very narrow definition of colonialism to me. This comes across particularly egregiously when he claims that South Korea “has never been colonised by an Anglophone power”. Perhaps not by Immerwahr’s definition. And so we land back at neocolonialism.

This very narrow definition does, I believe, serve an additional purpose. It allows us, quietly, to exclude discussions of a certain settler-colonial state from our narrative. Yes, I mean Israel. One of the first things I did on starting this book was look up Palestine and Israel in the index here. There are very few mentions of either (I think Israel had 4 or 5 to Palestine’s 2 or 3, but I don’t recall exactly) and they’re all very brief, but there’s one that illuminates Immerwahr’s position very clearly, which is the following:

“Palestine gained independence from Britain as the State of Israel.”

This is the first mention of Palestine in the book. This sentence didn’t reveal to me that this book wasn’t anti-imperialist because, as discussed, I’d already got that vibe early on, but it certainly put to bed any doubts I might have had about that conclusion. Now, why does Immerwahr’s definition of colonialism allow us to brush aside the question of Israel? Because, to be colonialist, the U.S. would have to have boots on the ground. It doesn’t have boots on the ground here, therefore it cannot be colonialist. Except which country is pouring billions of dollars into which, here? Which country’s interests in the region are served by the continued existence of an apartheid state? Which country uses its power to defend and back the other country’s actions to the hilt? Where do many of said apartheid state’s settlers hail from? But to label Israel as a U.S. colony would be to throw a spanner in the works of this book and its conclusion: that the U.S. may still be an empire, but it is not a colonialist one.

So, arguably, this book has shown how you hide an empire. You rid it of its invaded land and colonies, you narrow your definition of empire down until this is all it contains, you disregard the role of political pressure to align with your imperial state and the emergence of neocolonialism, and then you pretend like that’s the only definition allowed. Voila! In fact, you’ve now hidden it so effectively that not even Immerwahr, a supposed historian on the subject, can find it! Amazing work.

P.S. some good reviews I read too can be found here, here, and here.

[Graeme Newell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much new stuff reading this book! It is a chilling, eye-opening look at the often overlooked and ignored imperial aspirations of the United States.

Growing up, I learned about the 50 states and the important events that happened within them, but I had no idea about the various territories that were under US control. This book sheds light on the way these territories were treated and how they were essentially stripped of their agency and autonomy by the United States.

Goodness, the US did some pretty horrible things to the people in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam and other territories all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of people died, all in the name of westernization and progress.

What is so remarkable is that despite being a big history buff, this is the first time I’ve read about this stuff. This is an important aspect of American history that has been conveniently ignored and forgotten.

One thing that stood out to me was Immerwahr's exploration of how the United States attempted to erase the cultures and identities of the people in the territories it controlled. This was particularly evident in the way the United States forced English language and American culture on the people in these territories, often to the detriment of their own cultures and languages.

The United States has often viewed itself as a "benevolent" imperial power, one that was bringing "civilization" and "democracy" to the territories it controlled. However, as Immerwahr points out, this view is both misguided and dangerous. The United States' actions in these territories were often driven by greed and a desire for power, and the people living there were often treated as second-class citizens. Immerwahr's book is an important reminder that imperialism is never truly benevolent, and that the consequences of it can be devastating for the people living in the territories being controlled.

Immerwahr's writing style is engaging and easy to follow, making it a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about US history without feeling like they're reading a textbook. He weaves together narratives of the various territories that were part of the United States, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, to name a few. His storytelling is captivating, and I found myself drawn in by each story he shared.

The book is timely and relevant, given current discussions around imperialism, colonialism, and the role of the United States in the world. Immerwahr's work highlights the ongoing legacy of US imperialism and how it continues to impact the world today. By bringing attention to the territories that the United States has controlled and the ways in which it has exerted its power over them, Immerwahr invites readers to question the role of the United States in global affairs and to think critically about the impact of imperialism on the world.

Overall, I would highly recommend "How to Hide an Empire" to anyone interested in learning more about US history, particularly the parts that are often ignored. It's an insightful and thought-provoking read that will leave you with a greater understanding of the United States' impact on the world. Immerwahr's writing is engaging and accessible, making it a great read for both casual readers and history buffs alike. I finished the book feeling informed, inspired, and grateful for the opportunity to learn more about this important part of our America’s history.

[Trike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. This book is all that and a bag of chips.

This took me quite a while to read because it covers so much history across the entire planet. It’s truly epic in scope. I mean, just look at the sheer number of topics it covers in that list of tags. Only books like Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies come close.

It also took so long because I kept stopping to look things up, usually three or four times per chapter. Despite the numerous photos scattered throughout the book, there was always more to peruse. The giant globe George Marshall gifted to FDR: https://images.app.goo.gl/y266qakZD96... The thousands of redesigned US flags submitted during the 1940s and 50s, with 49, 50, and 51 stars: https://www.history.com/news/10-rejec... Maps of British rock bands: https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/br... Inga Arvad: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_... Carlos Romulo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo... Arthur MacArthur IV: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthu... Puerto Rico’s map, Philippines architecture, Sony gadgets, Ian Fleming’s Goldeneye, rubber plantations... every three pages introduced a new rabbit hole to fall down. I loved it.

Immerwahr ties together all of these things (and hundreds more) brilliantly, showing how America became a newfangled imperial empire by first emulating empires of old and then eschewing their example. First the US took land from the Native Americans, then it expanded into the rest of the Western Hemisphere, then pushed into the Pacific, gobbling up territory, then it just... gave most of it away. Instead of continuing to subjugate peoples and occupy land away from the continent, America relied instead on exerting its influence to browbeat the rest of the world into doing things the American way. And it worked! All of the perks of empire with few of the headaches.

The book is accessible and breezy and moves right along — provided you don’t stop to explore nooks and crannies the way I did. I would recommend Sarah Vowell’s excellent Unfamiliar Fishes as a prelude to this.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love history. It was one of my favorite classes in school, even though I'm pretty bad about remembering dates or specifics. But more than history, what i really love is origin stories. I LOVE knowing how things start, how they form. In my opinion, expert as it so obviously is, I can only truly appreciate the history of something if I know how it started. That's the most important part. It's the reason that the saying "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" exists. I think we're living a moment in time right now that bears that out.

But anyway, back to the point. I really enjoyed my history classes in school, but I can tell you that of the plethora of US history outlined in this book, almost nothing beyond the dates that Alaska and Hawaii became states was covered in any of my history classes. This isn't a failure of my school (though it was in Florida, so it wouldn't be TOO far off the mark to question it), but rather a deliberate concealment of a series of decisions, policies, territories, exploitations and atrocities that the US has acted and enacted upon various peoples and lands since landing at Plymouth Rock.

This is somewhat explained by looking at the situation in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, if you are not aware, is a US territory. The people who live there are US citizens. But like Guam and the US Virgin Islands, they do not have the same rights as US citizens that reside within the 50 states. They do not have representation in Congress. They cannot vote for president. They are considered property of the US, subject to US laws, but not its protections under the Constitution.

So, when Hurricane Maria devastated the island, and we all watched on the news as single rolls of paper towels were tossed into the crowd. These are OUR CITIZENS, having rolls of Bounty (probably) thrown at them, like "Go wipe it up." There was outrage, just in general, at the horrific callousness of the 45th occupant of the White House. But, to hear quite a lot of people tell it, Puerto Rico is a foreign country, and any aid we gave them was more than we had to. They mismanage their resources, owe the US money, are corrupt, are not-white... whatever bullshit spewed out, the real underlying commentary was "they are other, and undeserving."

But they are not. They are US citizens. (And even if they weren't US citizens, they are human, and for fucks sake, are we not better than this YET??) But this is why it's convenient to let these blemishes fade into the background. The people in power want the status quo just as it is, not people demonstrating and protesting for Puerto Rico's rights. The fact of the matter is that if people were aware of Puerto Rico's history as a US territory and how they've been used and mistreated, it would be a lot harder to justify abandoning them now - and that's politically inconvenient.

Ugh. SO much of this book made me ashamed of this country, and our history. I know I wasn't there, had no role in the decisions that were made... but I benefit from them now simply by living here and by the luck of having been born in a geographical area recognized as a "state" rather than one recognized as a "territory". Being a citizen and not living property. Or an inconvenience to be removed. Or a convenient captive pool of people for exploitation.

This book covers a LOT of ground, from the arrival of the settlers, westward expansion, and the Trail of Tears, to practically yesterday's headlines. And it was utterly fascinating. I learned SO MUCH that filled in the gaps of my knowledge of the country I've lived in for (cough cough) years. Such as... why Guantanamo Bay exists, for instance. And why Guantanamo Bay's location was specifically relevant when people started being detained there indefinitely during the war on terror. It's really interesting to really see the whole picture (or a much more complete picture) of how and why things are the way they are, and how that has been relevant or convenient during the US's foundations and history.

One thing that was noticeable for me, but that isn't a criticism necessarily, was that the tone of this book had a very progressive, modern edge. This is clearly a man writing history while looking through the lens of today's attitudes and mindsets. I don't mind that, because I'm not really of the opinion that an author such as this should not have an opinion on the atrocities that history witnessed and just present the facts. I'm totally fine with him looking askance at the shitty things that we did... but it is quite noticeable, and at times, almost humorous, which I found surprising. I would not have thought that I'd be chuckling at someone giving the side-eye to history, but here we are. I can see how this would be a criticism for others though.

Still, this book was incredible, and should be required reading. We should be willing to look at our history - all of it- so we can know who and what we are, and then we can determine who we want to be going forward.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States by Daniel Immerwahr is a very detailed account of the growth of the United States as territories were added including how they were acquired, some becoming states while others remained territories even to this day. We are familiar with maps that outline all fifty states. And we are also familiar with the idea that the United States is an "empire," exercising power around the world. But what about the actual territories--the islands, atolls, and archipelagos--this country has governed and inhabited? It's not all a rosy picture one should be proud of, there are some American worts, but on balance, I think America is still one of (if not THE) best countries in the world.

In How to Hide an Empire, Daniel Immerwahr tells the fascinating story of the United States outside the United States. In crackling, fast-paced prose, he reveals forgotten episodes that cast American history in a new light. We travel to the Guano Islands, where prospectors collected one of the nineteenth century's most valuable commodities, and the Philippines, site of the most destructive event on U.S. soil. In Puerto Rico, Immerwahr shows how U.S. doctors conducted grisly experiments they would never have conducted on the mainland and charts the emergence of independence fighters who would shoot up the U.S. Congress.

In the years after World War II, Immerwahr notes, the United States moved away from colonialism. Instead, it put innovations in electronics, transportation, and culture to use, devising a new sort of influence that did not require the control of space. Rich with absorbing vignettes, full of surprises, and driven by an original conception of what empire and globalization mean today, How to Hide an Empire is a major and compulsively readable work of history.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

How to Hide an Empire starts strong, but becomes progressively less interesting. The book slowly devolves from fascinating discussions on how the US government treated people in territories (rather than states) to topics such as the current prevalence of the English language or how the world came to adopt the US standards for screws. Suffice it to say that, at one point, Immerwahr actually spends time criticizing certain lyrics from the musical, "West Side Story." As the old adage goes, less would have made this book more.

[Anne-Marie Archer · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars.

Every time I go to read a book about American history, my stupid little brain thinks, "I already know about so many historical atrocities committed by America. How many more could there possibly be?"

And the answer is always, "So many."

[Numidica · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reader's view of this book will depend on how much history they know and how much they have traveled. I already knew quite a bit of the history recounted in the book, though there were many tidbits that were new to me, such as the history of the Guano Islands, Ernest Gruening, and the role of Albizu in Puerto Rico. I enjoyed the section on the development of standards such as ISO and ANSI, because those have directly impacted my career, though I suppose most sane people would find those parts boring. But the broader story was not a surprise to me, because I served in many of the "points of empire" detailed in the book. Vieques Island; tiny bases in Korea; rough camps in Honduras; Thule, Greenland; small kasernes in Germany? Been there. I get his central point, but what the author misses is how the privileged status of the United States is being frittered away by the current leadership of the country, either through a complete ignorance of what that privilege is based on, or by a self-interestedness blind to all else. Or both; it's probably both. Example: the US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and that status confers enormous advantages on the US in terms of its cost of borrowing, just to name one benefit. Yet political idiots have threatened to not pay the US debt, thus triggering a downgrade of US T-bills. Second example: the willful disruption and degradation of international treaties and relationships, all of which are beneficial in some way to the US, and are often very one-sided in favor of the US. Again, whether this is the result of stupidity or from some nefarious motive, I don't know.

The discussion of the treatment of Native Americans was eye-opening in parts. My grandparents lived in Alaska, so I had some exposure to the treatment of native peoples there, though the WW2 concentration camps for Aleuts and Inuits was a shock. The story of the Cherokees is well-known, but it's still disconcerting to hear the condensed narrative of that series of betrayals. The treatment of the Philippines is hard to explain away.

So if one is not aware of the arc of America's empire-building over the last 150 years, do read this. But I do not accept, as the author seems to imply, that it was all sordid business. The defeat of Hitler was not, the defeat of the murderous Tojo Regime was not, the rescue of the South Koreans from the tender mercies of Kim il-Sung was not, in my opinion. But it is a fair point that the US has been, too often, on the wrong side of history, notably in our own backyard in the Caribbean, Central and South America. But the case is not irredeemable. Dealing with other countries fairly and morally, and with respect for past shared sacrifices is a hobby that can be taken up at any time. Though don't hold your breath for the current president to do so.

[Thomas Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States, Daniel Immerwahr, 2019, 516pp, ISBN 9780374172145 Dewey 973

Empire is all about grabbing land and resources for "us," at "their" expense. Especially, militarily-strategic land and resources.

A citizen on the mainland has a constitutional right to trial by jury, but when that citizen travels to Puerto Rico, the right vanishes. p. 86. Four million territorial residents have no constitutional rights. p. 87.

U.S. armed forces have been deployed 211 times in 67 countries since 1945. p. 14.

Pre-1492, indigenous population of what became the 48 contiguous states was perhaps 5 million (estimates range from 720,000 to 15 million). p. 36. By 1800, indigenous population was down to around 500,000. The U.S. census did not count indigenous people until 1890, when there were fewer than 360,000. p. 78-79.

U.S. population was 4 million in 1790; 76 million in 1900: exploded by a factor of 19 in 110 years. p. 33-34. By 1907, there was no Indian territory left, with Oklahoma admitted as a state. p. 44.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...

Which of these people are the savages? p. 42.

The U.S. took all of Mexico's territory it could without taking its people. p. 77.

The 1854 Gadsden Purchase completed the present 48-state boundary.

Importation of Peruvian guano began in the 1840s. p. 49. It's the government's duty to secure it at a reasonable price. --Millard Fillmore. p. 50. From 1857 to 1902, the U.S. annexed 94 Caribbean and Pacific guano islands. pp. 46, 53. These were mining companies' fiefdoms. p. 55. Speculators used Chinese, Hawaiians, and African Americans to mine 400,000 tons of guano. p. 56.

By 1914, the Haber-Bosch process was supplying ammonia fertilizer made from atmospheric nitrogen. Malthus's limits to human population growth were seemingly repealed. p. 57. Without Haber-Bosch, Earth could sustain only 2.4 billion people. World population reached 3 billion in the early 1960s and has been rising by 1 billion every 12 years since. Sixty years on, we're approaching 8 billion in the early 2020s. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...

Fritz Haber also prolonged WWI by 2 years by providing Germany with nitrate explosives. p. 57. And invented the poison gases of WWI trench warfare and of the Nazi death chambers. p. 58.

"I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1897. p. 64. "McKinley is bent on peace, I fear." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1898. p. 66. But the American people wanted war. The U.S. beat the Spaniards easily because the Cubans and Filipinos had already weakened the Spanish army. p. 70. The U.S. gained 7,000 islands holding 8.5 million people. p. 80. The Filipinos then fought their new overlords. 1899-1903, U.S. soldiers killed 775,000 Filipinos. p. 103. And the war continued until 1913. p. 107. Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906.

Cuba was to be, nominally, independent. But, North Americans owned its export agriculture, its mines, its banks, and much of its land. p 113. The U.S. was not, technically, sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone. But it had all the rights, power, and authority. p. 114. The U.S. seized control of many countries' finance and trade--"gunboat diplomacy," invading dozens of times, replacing governments.

Southerner Woodrow Wilson's writings were an inspiration for the 1915 film, /The Birth of a Nation/, which lauded and rebirthed the then-defunct Ku Klux Klan. p. 117. Wilson invaded Haiti; the U.S. occupied it until 1934. Wilson annexed Virgin Islands for a naval base. p. 120.

The World War I victors took the losers' colonies. These were the prizes they fought the war for. p. 120.

Disappointed natives of occupied countries who had hoped for, and expected, colonialism to end after WWI included Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Sayyid Qutb. p. 121.

Germany, Italy, and Japan lacked large empires, going into WWII. Everybody wanted more colonies. p. 158.

Fewer than 10% of U.S. WWII armed-service members were in combat: more than 90% were in logistics. p. 215. The U.S. built ports, assembly plants, railways, roads, airports, barracks, hospitals, warehouses, in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Saharan Africa to get armaments to defend British control of the Suez Canal and Iraqi oil. pp. 216-217. And a trail of air bases, Miami-Brazil-West Africa-Cairo. U.S. materiél saved Britain's access to its colonies.

The same thing happened all over the world. In WWII, the U.S. had 30,000 installations on 2,000 overseas base sites. p. 219.

G.I.s were "overpaid, over-sexed, and over here." --British complaint.

Postwar, the Stars and Stripes flew over 135 million colonized or occupied people (including almost 80 million Japanese), and 132 million residents of the 48 states. p. 226.

Only Stalin kept U.S. personnel out of his country. Soviet pilots took delivery of U.S. planes in Fairbanks. p. 218.

U.S. control waned as 8 million servicemen abroad, May 1945 reduced to 1 million, June 1947. p. 234. The (shattered) Philippines became independent July 4, 1946. p. 238.

Puerto Rico, with widespread poverty, so depended on sales to mainland U.S. that a reduction of trade (as from tariffs if independent) would destroy all hope of life and civilization. p. 245. Attacks on police were met with the threat of independence and ruinous tariffs.

Doctors used Puerto Rican women as guinea pigs to find out what birth-control pill, intrauterine device, and other contraceptive methods work. p. 250. By 1949, 18% of hospital deliveries were followed by surgical sterilization of the mother. Of mothers born in the 1920s, nearly half had been sterilized.

In 1950, a Puerto Rican nationalist very nearly shot President Truman, whose life was saved by a dying police officer who killed the would-be assassin first. pp. 254-255. In 1954, Puerto Rican nationalists shot and wounded five U.S. congressmen in the House chamber. p. 258.

Corporations paid no taxes. p. 257.

By 1955, nearly 25% of Puerto Ricans lived in mainland U.S. p. 252.

Synthetic rubber made from oil reduced the need for tropical colonies. By 1945, The U.S. was producing 800,000 tons a year. p. 269. Plastics too. Also made from oil.

Logistics were central to WWII. Aviation, radio, cryptography, dehydrated food, penicillin, DDT, laid globalization's foundation. p. 282. DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) protected against insect-borne diseases by eradicating all plant and animal life. p. 292

During WWII, "many of us realized that foreign languages have actual, objective reality, that there are areas of the earth where, strange as it may seem, English is neither spoken nor understood." p. 321. The English language conquered the globalizing fields of Aviation, science ("God couldn't get tenure: he has only one publication, and it's not in English."), and especially the Internet. p. 330. "If the Chinese rule the world some day, I suspect they will do it in English." p. 331.

The U.S. keeps lightly-populated islands as bases, where it need account to no one. p. 345.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Popular history with analysis of American imperialism from the Colonial period and on into the aughts.


Contemporary USA “Logo Map” omitting territories.

My dead tree copy was a 516 pages. It had a US 2019 copyright. This book includes: Notes, Maps, Photographs, Diagrams, Illustrations, an Index and Illustration Credits.

Daniel Immerwahr is an American historian and journalist. He is the author of two books on social history. This was the first book I’ve read by the author.

This was a popular-oriented history of the United States. No particularly, deep knowledge of American history was assumed.

"The history of the United States is the history of empire." -- Daniel Immerwahr

TL;DR

“Territories” are the American euphemism for “colonies”. A moral separation was required by the original, 18th Century, 13 Colonies. Having fought to separate themselves from an empire, “The Colonies” couldn’t, at least immediately, have colonies of their own. This disingenuousness extends across history, to the point where most Americans have been oblivious of America’s foreign possessions.

To Americans, empire has meant projecting economic and military power abroad. After the Spanish American War, America became a British-style imperialist nation. America was and continues to be an empire. The shape of that empire has changed to become somewhat unrecognizable from the past. Immerwahr explains how America's overseas empire developed, and the: legal, political, military and social clashes that it created.

In the 19th Century, a burgeoning America swallowed its democratic values, by seizing off-shore territories. This was in-line with the period's mercantilist practice of empire. Immerwahr describes the debate on expansionism that rent the country and then disappeared. Along with that went a popular memory of the: Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico as US possessions. It was Hawaii, and the Philippines that eventually drew the country into WWII in the Pacific.

During the wars of the 20th Century (WWI and through to WWII) technological development greatly decreased the dependence of western economies on natural resources not found in the Northern hemisphere. After World War II, global anti-colonial sentiment led to what was left of the legacy empires decolonizing. This included the shrinking of America's physical empire. However, the American empire didn't go away. It just changed its size and form leveraging the now available technology to achieve the same effect.

Now the empire projects economic and military power abroad physically less obtrusively. Aircraft carrier battlegroups on the High Seas. Small Island airbases like Diego Garcia and larger base facilities on American territories and friendly countries, like Guam and Okinawa.

The actions of the principals, be they: George Washington, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and later were so much of their time. Immerwahr portrays the actions of three earlier centuries of American expansionism from a journalistic, 21st Century perspective. He cherry picked historical examples to abet his narrative. He festooned what was a short and very good historical narrative in peripheral, popular culture for a wider audience. That sacrificed the historian’s search for the ‘then’ structures and the changes over time for a more rousing popular narrative.

The Review

I put this book in my TBR immediately after hearing Immerwahr’s book on an On the Media podcast. Despite them featuring a six-year-old book, his presentation came across as polished. He also pared-down the book to its middle-third for the podcast.

Immerwahr’s prose was good, but uneven. It was groomed, but not meticulously so. I found several text errors and several instances of repetition. I also noted his prose oscillated between the precision of an academic and the more colloquial style of a popular journo. In particular, high-falutin words would occasionally pop-up. "Parlous" being an example.

Notes were peculiar and brief. They were not foot noted in the text. They were listed by page number, subdivided by section in the Notes section at the back of the book. The reader was left to guess if a snippet of text had a note. There also could be several notes on a single page. I suspect this was done because popular histories don’t clutter a page with superscripted numbers?

Maps and illustrations were good. They were professionally done. They also appeared embedded in the narrative at the part they supported. Using modern, satellite maps was also possible to follow along, as the names of locations within the US have not changed much in the last 200 years. Excluding the recent naming of “The Gulf of America”, of course?

Photographs were good. They were likewise embedded appropriately within the narrative.

There was no Bibliography. This was an unfortunate and frankly unprofessional tip to popular historiography. It was left to the reader to ferret-out Immerwahr’s sources from the poorly organized footnotes mentioned above. The few sources I did track-down were quite varied. His military history source references were frankly shoddy. Immerwahr's interpretation of the origins and effects of controversial events in American Pacific territories is less balanced than the mainstream, military historians on the subject. Oddly, while he identifies Howard Zinn ( A People's History of American Empire ) as a leftist, he does not identify himself as one?

The Index appeared accurate.

The organization of the book was peculiar. I came to feel that Immerwahr had 200-pages that supported his thesis. He padded that to 400-pages, with peripheral observations, of the “Did you know?” ilk of popular histories, and had 100-pages of back matter (Notes, Index, etc.). In trying to get a wide reach for his book, he overreached.

For example, the 18-pages of the “Power is Sovereignty, Mr. Bond” section. He used Ian Fleming's book character antagonists’ usage of an island base as an example for his Pointillism thesis. Dr. No's conquering the world from a remote island was a bit too much popular culture.

Another peculiarity was Immerwahr embroidering his family history into the narrative (twice). This was with regard to the Haber process , a 19th Century technological innovation and the Jewish Holocaust. This was a vanity.

The core thesis, less the popular culture embellishments and aggrandizement was solid.

The American territorial model of administration evolved over more than almost 100-years of regional expansion across the North American continent. It began in the colonial period and extended to the Alaska Purchase. Territories were tracts of North America that were either: purchased, annexed through war, or outright seized. Eventually they were brought into the Union. For example, the: Louisiana Purchase, Mexican–American War, and Indian Territory.

With the end of the Spanish–American War, the United States gained off-shore territories. The consequences of this internally, politically contested exercise in expansionism has shaped American politics and foreign policy for the last 125-years.

Inhabitants of US territories, for most of US history, have been 2nd Class citizens. The Bill of Rights does not apply to inhabitants of territories. In the past territories have been administered by: the military or Martial Law, by appointment from Washington, and only more recently by local referendum.

The circumstance for territories being brought into the Union has been dependent on 250-years of American politics. Early in the country’s history, it was fear of war with then strong, Native American tribes by the weak government. Later, it was balancing the slave vs. free states in Congress. Post-Civil War it was maintaining a White supremacy population balance within the Union. Recently, it has been balancing Republican vs. Democratic states in Congress.

In the 19th Century the Industrial Revolution required raw materials typically not found within European or North American borders. Natural rubber being one example. The ‘Gold Standard’ of economics required gold and silver to ensure national wealth. Minable precious metals are globally rare. However, they could be found abroad as could other necessary raw materials, if not available domestically. Gold and other raw materials could also be obtained through trade. In trade, an excess of exports over imports was necessary to prosper. Foreign Colonies could supply raw materials and also be captive markets. This was mercantilism. Note the United States escaped this when they achieved independence, only to adopt it about 100-years later.

In addition, in the 18th-19th Century, it took two-months and several stops to reach Asia from either Europe or North America. Transportation technology at the time, first wind-powered and then coal-fired steamships. They required controlled, harbors to guarantee open trade routes and to project power. The hinterland of these harbors made for excellent colonies.

Off-shore territories were acquired in the administration of United States President William McKinley with the aid of his Secretary of Navy and future president Theodore Roosevelt. They transformed the United States from a continental North American territorial empire into a globe-spanning one through the Spanish–American War (1898).

America’s overseas territories eventually came to be: the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, the annexed Hawaii, and later, the Virgin Islands along with numerous small islands such as Wake and Midway.

The Philippines and Puerto Rico almost immediately become a problem. Both were: populous, Hispanic, majority non-white, Catholic and Muslim, to name a few differences. They were unlike the Anglo-America, which at the time considered immigrant folks of Irish extraction, to be marginally more desirable as citizens than the slaves freed in the still recent Civil War. The Philippine Revolution in-progress when acquired by the United States continued for another 35-years, becoming a quagmire. (The first of America's long wars.) Puerto Rico became a benignly, neglected, off-shore ghetto.

Eventually in the 20th Century, mostly as an offshoot of the technological innovations developed during WWI and WWII, colonies less necessary. Technology provided alternate raw material sources. Nitrogen compounds for fertilizer and explosives could be extracted from the air not mined. Plentiful petroleum was a high-energy fuel source, and a raw material for rubber and plastic production. Plastic being an alternative to metals. Aviation technology shrunk distances for delivery of people and materials. Logistics technology and the development of supply chains shrunk: time, distance, and material waste in trade.

In addition to contributing to rapid technological change, the world wars broke the back of the legacy European, and Japanese empires. The rise of the United States empire as the lone Super Power, made it easier for all empires to decolonize. Owning whole countries with their fractious populations was no longer necessary for prosperity. An airport or airbase (on land or afloat), and harbor or naval base guaranteed open trade routes and the ability to projected power.

This led to Immerwahr’s Pointillist Empire . That’s shrinking of imperial footprint to a few square miles or hundreds of square meters afloat of sovereign territory to achieve the same results that previously involved what were whole countries and their populations.

Finally, I have a keen interest in military history. Recently, I've been reading about the Philippine Insurrection and WWII in the South Pacific. Two books, one by three British writers, The Battle for Manila , and By Sword and Fire: The Destruction of Manila in World War II, 3 February - 3 March 1945 by Alfonso J. Aluit, are not accepted as mainstream by military historians. In general, the author could have lead an uninformed reader to believe the American tenure in the Philippines was little more than an orgy of racism and atrocities. The Americans were both successful and unsuccessful in a wide variety of responses addressing many different challenges there.

Summary

This book was a popular history describing the structure and the changes over time of the American empire. In places the history and analysis was rigorous. However, parts of the narrative have a less objective journalistic bent.

I thought Immerwahr did a very good job on the history of technology and its affect on Colonialism. However, I wished for a better, more rigorously, researched economic and military history analysis from this social historian. (Unreliable sources were used to make a more exciting narrative.)

Most Americans have a tenuous grasp of their history. Despite that, knowledge of America’s colonies have almost disappeared from common memory. Immerwahr makes for an easy read by infusing the history with popular culture and a general 21st Century sensibility. At its heart there is some solid, academic social history.

The author’s anecdotes were an important part of this book. They were very readable, at times amusing, and others akin to agitprop. I came to think not all of them were necessary.

However, the story of Territories is 250-years old. It encompassed several eras of American politics. More than one of those periods, are no longer looked on with any admiration. Some of those politics are long gone. The whole or remnants of others are still present. Although, the lot of the: non-Protestant, non-native English speaking, non-white territorials and immigrants from the territories has improved. We can all hope that the entire United States could be as successfully multi-cultural and racial as the former, annexed, territory and now state of Hawaii? The author buried that wish to include many more charged historical examples and coached them in a 21st Century context.

This was a readable American history. Immerwahr’s thesis on the evolution of American Colonies Territories was mostly solid, despite an in-places sketchy presentation from a historian wearing a journalist’s hat.

[thefourthvine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever since I read The Not-Quite States of America: Dispatches from the Territories and Other Far-Flung Outposts of the USA, I’ve been looking for a book on the United States’s imperial possessions, and the first half of this book is exactly what I wanted. Not-Quite States is mostly a travelogue; I wanted the background, the details, the history, and this absolutely provides.

I do think the second half of the book gets a bit scattershot; I wanted it to be more like the first half, with more details on the remaining bits of our empire. And it definitely treads territory I’m very familiar with; I didn’t learn much in the second half. But the first, wow, totally makes this book worth reading.

(Warning: depressing and infuriating. But, hey, it’s history, so you knew that.)

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a run don’t wait to read type of book. It’s dense with information but so readable. There was so much in this book that i didn’t know before or was exposed to a whole other viewpoint. It really brought home the idea of standardization and makes me wonder about it has affected my profession, education. A great great book. A necessary read.