
How the US has hidden its empire - unmole
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/the-us-hidden-empire-overseas-territories-united-states-guam-puerto-rico-american-samoa
======
WA
> _Besides Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
> the US Virgin Islands and a handful of minor outlying islands, the US
> maintains roughly 800 overseas military bases around the world._

Germany has a few US military bases. It’s a bit of a micro cosmos. People pay
in USD and can buy American products there. I think even the VAT is added on
checkout to the price (whereas in Germany, prices in stores always show VAT
included).

I was on one a couple times when they played a theatre play (Christmas Charol
or so). Quite interesting.

~~~
gambiting
>>I think even the VAT is added on checkout to the price (whereas in Germany,
prices in stores always show VAT included).

How is that legal? By law the price shown has to include VAT. Unless somehow
the American base is not considered German territory?

~~~
TheCondor
As a general matter of policy, I believe US embassies and military bases are
considered US soil.

~~~
zip1234
Embassies perhaps but the bases are slightly different:
[https://www.stuttgartcitizen.com/news/military-civilians-
fam...](https://www.stuttgartcitizen.com/news/military-civilians-families-
fall-under-sofa/)

------
lewilewilewi
Killing Hope
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Hope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Hope))
is a write up of all major US efforts at controlling other countries. I don't
know what Americans think of it, but it's fascinating as an outsider.

~~~
stronglikedan
I haven't read that book, but on the topic of US foreign policy in general,
most people I know here in America realize it's a lose-lose effort that we
must continue to lose. When it comes to helping other countries, we go from
"not enough" to "too much" seemingly overnight, but there never seems to be a
"just right".

~~~
JeremyNT
So fundamental to American propaganda is the notion that imperialism is born
of a desire to "help" other countries. It is true that it is often packaged
and sold this way, and in some cases it may even be a contributing factor, but
our adventurism is largely driven by the military industrial complex and
capital looking for "new markets" or "cheap labor" or even just a desire to
strangle competing ideologies in their infancy.

~~~
stronglikedan
That may sound like a good fit for a common narrative, but it's certainly not
rooted in fact. Being a superpower, America is often asked to help, and other
times forced to help. There's no desire to do any of that stuff you mentioned,
for the reasons you seem to think. Unfortunately, it's impossible to please
everybody all the time, which creates the propaganda that leads you to think
the way you do, so I certainly don't fault you for being wrong.

------
TomMckenny
The US also had a practical reason for disliking traditional imperialism.

By the time the US became substantial enough for real international trade,
vast swathes of the planet were under other nation's empires leaving fewer
trading partners than could be desired. Commodore Perry's somewhat invasive
trip to Japan was to try and add a few trading partners from unclaimed
nations.

So I suppose it's not too surprising that the colonies gained in the pointless
glory seeking of the Spanish American war led to a bit of schizophrenia.

------
kaycebasques
The historiography [1] of this article is interesting. The author talks about
how the drafts of FDR's speech changed throughout the day after the bombings.
Presumably this means that the author had access to the various drafts of the
speech. Pretty clever way to try to glimpse into what he was thinking.

[1] The study of the methods used when writing history.

~~~
tanderson92
Not just the author has access; the drafts of the Infamy speech are public:
[https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/winter/c...](https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/winter/crafting-
day-of-infamy-speech.html)

You can view the handwritten edits by Roosevelt in the archival drafts.

------
larrysalibra
I’ve lived in Hong Kong for some time and even though I’ve been to Guam a few
times, in my mind the US is a country that is a 12 to 16 hour flight away when
in fact its really only a 4 hour flight away.

------
dalbasal
The problem with big hairy political words like "empire" is that meaningless
semantics take over.

From our perspective, in the post-colonial era, the term "empire" and
"colonisation" are just inherently negative terms. The defining qualities
(this article explicitly makes this argument) of empire are considered to be
slavery, reservation systems and such. In some sense, empire can just mean
"bad" and bad can be proof or empire.

The postcolonial age is also the natiolist age, where nation states are the
basis of the political system. That makes imperialism's defining quality "the
subjegation of nations" because it denies nations ultimate authority.

Marx associated empire with capitalism (surprise surprise), using the term
"international capitalism" interchangeably with empire. Considering history,
this has some logic to it. For example, the Royal Britsh East India Trading
Company colonized India. The crown later confiscated it. 18th and 19th century
empires were about controling trade, whether by a king, legal monopoly or
otherwise.

The article plays with a mundane territorial definition. Ff you control
"overseas" land...

All interesting discussion topics, but also a problem.

"Is X an Empire" just depends on the definition. It's not a meaningful
question in itself. Just because you conclude that "yes, it is" doesn't mean
anything.

~~~
coldtea
> _" Is X an Empire" just depends on the definition._

If X controls my local politics to its benefit, overthrows legitimate
governments, and establishes dictatorships whenever it likes, and does that in
tons of countries around the world, I'd call it an empire...

~~~
dalbasal
Case in point.

------
mbubb
US citizenship and American Samoa will become an interesting topic if Tulsi
Gabbard becomes a frontrunner as a presidential candidate. To become POTUS you
need to be "native born" US Citizen which is a very nebulous idea.

~~~
nick2
It won't be an issue. Her mother was born in Indiana so Tulsi is a natural
born US citizen. Just like Ted Cruz who was born in Canada.

~~~
maxxxxx
I am sure this will be an issue with a lot of super partisans. My neighbor
still believes that Obama was not eligible for being president. I have no idea
what evidence could convince these people otherwise.

~~~
newen
Let's hope the opinion of your neighbor doesn't cause a constitutional crisis.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think the people who are spreading these rumors are playing a very dangerous
game. There seems to be a trend to spread doubts about elections, FBI
investigations, CIA findings and others without providing real evidence. This
is a short term benefit for the people spreading the rumors but I wonder if
they are starting something that may spin out of control at some point.

~~~
balt_s
We're a bit past that right now.

~~~
maxxxxx
What makes you think that?

~~~
newen
You talk like you have been living under a rock for the past three years.
Trump got politically famous through the birther movement. Most of the people
who support Trump believe in a lot of these rumors, as you call them, or fake
news, as the rest of the world now call them.

Fake news has been a big problem around the world for the past few years and
the media has acknowledged and widely publicised it as a problem since 2016.
Since a lot of people get their news from Facebook now, and Facebook has been
algorithmically recommending fake news articles to people, Facebook has gotten
a lot of flak for it, including the CEO being called to testify about it in
Congress. A lot of people are now trying to figure out how to combat fake news
and this has been on the news and this website for the last few years.

~~~
maxxxxx
"A lot of people are now trying to figure out how to combat fake news and this
has been on the news and this website for the last few years."

You are pretty naive if you think this nonsense will be fixed in a substantial
way. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are dependent on outrage and will not
do much to stop it. Yes, there are some people here and in the news discussing
these issues but at the same time there are are many more people making a good
living off perpetuating propaganda. The most that will happen to Facebook will
be a lot of hot air and maybe a slap on the wrist.

~~~
newen
Yes, it's been 2 years since the problem has been publicised and discussed but
fake news is still widespread. So clearly it is a difficult problem that is
hard to fix. But stop talking about it like you just discovered that fake news
exists. I'm not sure what kind of discussion you were trying to start by doing
that.

~~~
maxxxxx
What makes you think that I just discovered fake news? Are you always that
aggressive?

------
forkLding
I guess the interesting thing to note now is that Puerto Rico is likely going
to become a state in 2021.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Why 2021? Did something happen?

~~~
geofft
Wildly guessing: the federal government's response to Hurricane Maria hitting
Puerto Rico was wildly insufficient, so if the opposition party takes control
(which seems more likely than not), especially given that the opposition party
prefers to err on the side of too much government aid/intervention than too
little, statehood for Puerto Rico is a reasonably obvious priority. (And a
goos strategy for shifting the balance of power in the Electoral College and
the Senate, incidentally.)

~~~
jcranmer
Except Puerto Rico has to advance a state constitution that Congress has to
accept, so the Puerto Rico government itself needs to accept statehood. Except
there's not a clear majority in favor of statehood in Puerto Rico; the last
two referendums were effectively sabotaged.

------
eternalban
Was that article written in close proximity to the 'City of London'? Now that
is titular irony.

------
YUMad
This is the reason why China finds it acceptable to act as they do in quite a
few things, such as attempts to enlarge their EEZ. In their mind, they are
just doing what USA did too, so it's a fair game.

But they do not understand, refuse to understand, or simply hold irrelevant
the narrative manipulation that is necessary to pull it off, and this is
something US excels at. The 'spreading freedom' meme is just one example;
another example is 'we do it, and after that we declare it illegal for others
to do it' \- US committed significant war crimes, such as fire bombing of
Dresden and Kyoto, and was never held accountable for it.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Please attend to your facts:

-The fire bombing of Dresden was executed jointly by the United States and United Kingdom, with the UK flying more sorties. This occurred during a war when Germany was executing strategic bombing campaigns against the UK.

-The United States of America did not fire bomb Kyoto. Nobody did.

~~~
DanBC
> This occurred during a war when Germany was executing strategic bombing
> campaigns against the UK.

The wider point is interesting though. We started the war with the attitude
that killing civilians would be a war crime, and then as the war went on that
principle was eroded more and more until fire-bombing several civilian
populations across Germany was allowed.

There's a reason "Bombber Harris" was also known as Butcher Harris. Even
Churchill disliked the area bombing tactics.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Indeed. Attitudes toward civilian casualties in warfare, at least in the West,
are less tolerant today--- but the West hasn't been in an existentially-
challenging shooting war since 1945.

~~~
skinnymuch
Aren’t there great number of civilian deaths in the Middle East like Iraq,
Yemen? I wouldn’t be surprised that my ignorance is leaving out some wars in
Africa this century that the west has some complicity to as well.

------
porpoisely
It's "hidden" to us by our propagandists. Our empire is visible and obvious to
everyone else.

Our news, history books, movies, etc all hide it by simply not labeling the US
as an empire. It's just as easy as that. We use terms like "superpower" or
"leader of the western" or "leader of democracies" or other euphemisms to hide
and forgive conquests, brutality, genocide and empire.

Empire is evil and it's something our enemies do, not what we do. It's the
british, germans, japanese and most recently the evil soviets who create
empires. We are not evil, we don't create empires.

------
sonnyblarney
Wait - so the special relationship with the Philippines then ... which was in
mostly fairly autonomous?

... that's the big ole' 'Empire'?

... and a few mostly unpopulated dots in the Ocean?

Oh, so scary! The power!

And to consider that Filipinos, who are culturally distinct from Americans in
every way, and who have almost nothing in common with Americans but a
temporary geopolitical alignment should be considered 'Americans' in the same
way as those from New Orleans and NYC?

So that's 2018 intersectionalist history?

Rubbish.

America is quite fundamentally distinct from the Philippines and always has
been, there's no fundamental reason that most Americans on the street should
care enough to 'go to war' over foreign interdiction.

Going to war for those with whom the US has a special arrangement, and going
to war for the 'homeland' are indeed quite different questions.

There's no 'hiding' here.

Thanks for the history tidbits Graun, but as usually the headline is
ridiculous.

~~~
SllX
1941 Philippines was as American as 1941 Hawaii which were both about as
American as or 1848-1859 Oregon Territory was or 1941-present Puerto Rico is.
So, American, if you consider territory where Americans live on American soil
to be American.

Where they fork off is the Philippines are now an independent nation, Hawaii
is now a US State, Oregon Territory was eventually split into 3 entire US
States and part of a couple of others, and Puerto Rico still has more or less
the same status as it did in 1941, but a few more rights and privileges
afforded to them along with present day Guam, present day Northern Marianas
Islands, and present day US Virgin Islands. American Samoa is US Territory,
but a Navy playground so while the people are American Nationals living under
the US Constituton, they’re not American Citizens and their territory is
considered to be on par with all those unpopulated guano Islands we once
claimed. That’s the _law_ , 2019.

The Filipinos are culturally distinct but we still count large numbers of them
as American Citizens, both as immigrants and as a people that have lived in
the mainland since before the Philippines were granted independence. The
Native Hawaiians were and still are considered culturally distinct but they
are still American Citizens by birthright.

Put another way, your defensive posture is simply out of place here. On
December 7th 1941, the Japanese attacked the United States. That shouldn’t
need qualification. If they had only attacked Manila but didn’t make it to
Oahu, they still would have been attacking the United States and that was
certainly the _intent_ of their attack.

------
golergka
> On this to-scale map, Alaska isn’t shrunken down to fit into a small inset,
> as it is on most maps.

I'm pretty sure it's usually "scaled down" because that's how map projection
works. Does this writer also think that Greenland and Africa are of comparable
size?

~~~
SiempreViernes
One example map, and to me a pretty typical example of the genre, shows Alaska
on a about half the scale of the contiguous states. Compare the by the scale
markings:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Map_of_U...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Map_of_USA_with_state_names_2.svg)

This is not simply projection effects, this is explicit downscaling.

Another comparison, Wikipedia lists the area of Alaska as 1,717,856 km^2 and
that of the contiguous United States 8,080,400 km^2, so on a map with only
projection correction Alaska should be around 1/4 of the size of the lower 48,
this is clearly not true on the wikipedia example shown above, and for any
other map in the same style.

So no, Alaska is not scaled down for the sake of accurately depicting its
size.

~~~
arcticfox
Great response. I was going to take a different tack because the Alaska issue
seems so obvious, but then I remembered that some people out there don't
_have_ maps [1], at least not state maps of the United States.

[1] Including many U.S. Americans

------
hanging
"Contrary to popular memory, the event familiarly known as “Pearl Harbor” was
in fact an all-out lightning strike on US and British holdings throughout the
Pacific. On a single day, the Japanese attacked the US territories of Hawaii,
the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island and Wake Island."

This is horrendously sloppy journalism.

The first attack on Wake was three days later and was repelled. The successful
attack was _another 12 days_ after that.

And the Midway attack was _six months_ after Pearl.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Wikipedia disagrees with you, and confirms that both Midway and Wake were
attacked on the day of Pearl.

In the case of Wake, 8 of the 12 Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters were destroyed.
In the case of Midway, the attack that day was repulsed.

~~~
yellowapple
I'd argue that the Pearl Harbor attack specifically was the primary attack (at
least on that front, i.e. excluding the Philippines), and that the Wake and
Midway attacks that happened were incidental (or at most in support of) that
attack. While I hate the idea of quantity of lives lost being any sort of
metric for the "importance" of an attack (every American life lost matters),
Pearl Harbor took the brunt of it.

If anything, Pearl Harbor (and other surrounding targets) was the target
specifically to tie up American efforts in the Northeast Pacific and keep them
out of the way of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. That much the
article seems to get correctly, and is arguably the article's main point.

~~~
jfk13
> (every American life lost matters)

Are non-American lives somehow worth less? (Or just worthless?)

That's the kind of ethno-centric mindset that doesn't even bother to count the
civilian "collateral damage" as long as our guys are safe in their body armor
or -- better -- thousands of miles away directing drones from behind a desk.

It doesn't help much with building intercultural trust and understanding,
though, or "winning hearts and minds".

~~~
yellowapple
By "American lives", I meant "lives lost as a result of an attack on American
soil". That includes civilian lives, including civilians in American
territories (i.e. the Philippines, which was part of America at the time, and
Hawaii/Wake/Guam/Midway, which still are).

While I understand that this can be an emotional topic, I would appreciate it
if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

~~~
jfk13
The point isn't the exact semantics of "American lives", it's that you chose
to identify a particular kind of lives that "matter". Whether or not you meant
it that way, it's easy for a reader to see this as implying that other lives
matter less, especially as this kind of attitude (and phrasing) is pretty
widespread.

A more inclusive "every life lost matters" would have served equally well in
the context, wouldn't it?

~~~
yellowapple
The context was an attack on American soil and ascertaining the primary target
of that attack. Casualties on the American side are definitely the more
relevant metric than, say, casualties on the Japanese side.

Besides, the non-American lives lost - that is, the Japanese lives lost - were
lost specifically because they were attacking American soil unprovoked and by
surprise. While their lives certainly did matter, and I do sympathize with the
soldiers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country,
it should be entirely unsurprising that, you know, maybe I'll have a little
more sympathy for the defenders. This is not a US-centric mindset, by the way
(despite me happening to be American), unless you think extending the same
difference in sympathy to Chinese defenders v. Japanese aggressors in the same
exact war is somehow "US-centric", or similarly extending the same difference
in sympathy to Middle Eastern defenders v. American aggressors.

