
How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States - hhs
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/adrian-chen-reviews-daniel-immerwahrs-how-to-hide-an-empire.html
======
wahern
> [T]he events that happened in the colonies are not remembered today because
> they were not deemed important at the time by the people who told memorable
> stories.

...

> For Immerwahr, this transformation poses the puzzling question of why, at
> the height of its power, the U.S. decided to divest itself of all but a
> scattering of its territorial holdings. He argues [insert bunch of
> convoluted explanations]

The answer is clear and was unwittingly already admitted: nobody cared. With
the exception of Manifest Destiny, the U.S. had always been inward looking. We
ended up with far flung colonies because we kept stumbling into the role of
major power. Prior to WWII, the only time we wrestled with the inevitability
of our place was with the Monroe Doctrine, which is less an exception and more
an affirmation that the United States had little interest in imperial power
for its own sake. Many political and industrial leaders wished otherwise and
attempted to force the U.S. into the position, but it could never be sustained
because of the domestic disinterest.

It's no coincidence that the balance of political power shifted from the
states to the Federal government at the same time the U.S. actively pursued a
dominating international position--abortively prior to WWII but completely
subsequent to WWII. And it's becoming increasingly clear that the end of the
Cold War may have heralded a retreat to our old ways. Again, no coincidence
that our national identity is as fractured as it ever has been in the modern
era.

A national identity that was defined in contradistinction to foreign
identities, and an economy so dominated by foreign trade that economic
interests in overseas, non-European markets could wag the dog--these are
things the U.S. never experienced (at least not prior to WWII), but
characteristics shared by every actual colonial and imperial power.

As for the pervasive racist beliefs, they had nothing to do with colonialism.
Conflating these things simply obscures the underlying dynamics. It's actually
counterproductive because it permits people to deny the real racism by denying
its imperialist past--which is easily denied because of facts. Similarly, it
minimizes the continuously antagonistic, if not continuously genocidal,
attitude toward Native Americans. By trying to shoehorn American history into
the narrative of European and Japanese imperialism one is implicitly
equivocating our treatment of Filipinos and Cubans the same way we treated the
Native American nations. That's facially and tragically false. It's a lazy,
pernicious attempt to import moral arguments from the anti-colonial movement
into the American debate. It neither sheds light on historical tragedies
(domestically or internationally) nor helps us grapple with our contemporary
prejudices.

~~~
burfog
Cause and effect go the other way. Actively pursuing a dominating
international position was caused by the shift to more federal power. That
came about mostly due to:

1\. the Civil War, establishing a new level of federal supremacy

2\. the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax

3\. the 17th amendment, which stopped states from choosing senators who would
rein in federal power

Other factors may be:

4\. abuse of the commerce clause, with _West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish_ and
the end of the Lochner era.

5\. ease of movement and communication (rail, cars, radio, TV) reducing
feelings of identification with individual states

6\. the speed and complexity of modern war making it necessary to continuously
maintain an active-duty military with an active weapons supply industry

~~~
wahern
I didn't mean to imply the direction of causality, only that they were related
and that the relation elucidates the factors (e.g. how identity is defined,
how interests are aligned) we should be looking at to better understand and
categorize the behaviors.

Colonialism and imperialism are labels that imply particular motivations and
dynamics. Just because America did some [horrible] things that resembled the
things other powers did doesn't mean the same narrative can or should apply.

American exceptionalism is real. We're just not always exceptional in the ways
we think we are. And we're not exceptional in being exceptional. China is
exceptional. Western Europe (and now Europe) is exceptional. Imperialism and
colonialism is reflection of Western European (and Japanese, in so far as they
deliberately imported it) exceptionalism. It makes no more sense to use
colonialism and imperialism to describe American history as it does using
Manifest Destiny to describe European history. Likewise with slavery--you're
not going to get very far in terms of addressing the legacy of slavery by
lumping the American slave trade in with the European slave trade, despite the
obvious and substantial and, indeed, causal relationships. There are infinite
parallels to draw, but doing so doesn't contribute much to understanding what
happened and why it happened.

The law of tort distinguishes cause in fact and proximate cause. A proximate
cause must be a cause in fact, but a cause in fact isn't a proximate cause.
Scholars can identify all sorts of causes of fact about American occupation.
And they can show how those causes of fact are identical to the causes of fact
in colonialism and imperialism. But so what? Broader historical narratives
aren't based on a set of causes of fact, but on higher-order dynamics--the
proximate causes of why things happened the way they did.

------
spyckie2
This is not a great article.

First, if you mention that America has an overseas empire, you probably need
to let us know exactly what the empire contains. Maps of European imperialism
exist and help us understand what an "overseas empire" actually looks like. In
the article, aside from the Philippines, there is no mention of any other
largely populated countries. We have no idea of the scale of the "American
Overseas Empire" at all.

Second, if you're trying to say that the American Empire is larger than it's
colonization, it's be nice to let us know, again with a map, the sphere of
influence under American rule. Telling us that America has many military bases
is a poor substitute.

Finally, the author is picking through straw with his examples of Jefferson
and FDR.

America is an empire. It's influence has been global since the turn of last
century. The extent of American influence is seen everywhere. There are many
books and articles on America's influence on the world that fairly cover both
sides of history.

The reason why colonization is not often talked about is because it's an
outdated and inefficient practice that America just didn't care much about.
It's why the Europeans deprecated it - ruling a country in order to benefit
from it's resources is inefficient because you actually have to govern it and
govern it pretty well for you to have any long term benefits. There's much
easier and more direct ways for you to gain benefits from others, and believe
it or not, most of them are mutually beneficial to both parties.

~~~
hhs
OP here. Please note that this piece is a review of Daniel Immerwahr's book,
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States".

~~~
spyckie2
Ah. It reads like an opinion piece that has several citations of various books
and historical figures, all of equal weight to the article.

If it is a book review, there should be more separation between the book's
content and the critic's viewpoint. The 'objective critic' is what we want to
know if we read a review of someone else's work. Whereas this line joins the
two viewpoints together together:

> Only an American such as myself could be so totally oblivious to their own
> country’s imperial past.

------
erkose
I heard something related to this recently. The development of synthetic
rubber meant we did not need to control regions with rubber plantation. This
was mentioned in association with World War II. Another interesting point
discussed was that in order to send secure communication by wire you had to
control the land the wire traversed to prevent disruption of the
communication. The invention of wireless communication meant that you only had
to control the terminals of the communication.

~~~
nitwit005
It's not exactly like they had to control regions with rubber to have access
to it. They could have just paid for it like we do today.

~~~
bsamuels
Until it gets seized by a rival country, at which point the only way you're
getting it back is a declaration of war.

~~~
nitwit005
Assuming there is a single source, and that rival country is completely
determined to stop you from getting any of it, instead of selling it to make
money as normal?

More commonly they'd just put a tariff in place, which is likely cheaper to
pay for than a war and occupation.

~~~
erkose
I provided context for this, WW2. The Allies were cut off from the natural
rubber supply of Southeast Asia at the beginning of the war. You can read more
about it here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber)

~~~
nitwit005
I understood the example, but speaking in generalizations at this point.

I would note that the US struggled to produce rubber in the Phillipines, so
they didn't exactly get that out of the occupation:
[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/philippines/1926-07-...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/philippines/1926-07-01/rubber-
and-philippines)

------
youeseh
Related article for those interested:
[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/the-us-
hidden-e...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/the-us-hidden-
empire-overseas-territories-united-states-guam-puerto-rico-american-samoa)

"At first, “Pearl Harbor” was not the way most people referred to the
bombings. “Japs bomb Manila, Hawaii” was the headline in one New Mexico paper;
“Japanese Planes Bomb Honolulu, Island of Guam” in another in South Carolina.
Sumner Welles, FDR’s undersecretary of state, described the event as “an
attack upon Hawaii and upon the Philippines”. Eleanor Roosevelt used a similar
formulation in her radio address on the night of 7 December, when she spoke of
Japan “bombing our citizens in Hawaii and the Philippines”.

That was how the first draft of FDR’s speech went, too: it presented the event
as a “bombing in Hawaii and the Philippines”. Yet Roosevelt toyed with that
draft all day, adding things in pencil, crossing other bits out. At some point
he deleted the prominent references to the Philippines."

~~~
billfruit
Also in Commonwealth, it is remembered as the day when Japanese attacked Hong
Kong. They took and occupied Honk Kong for the entire duration of the war.

------
bunnycorn
Non-American here.

This is how I expect media to describe the US External Politics

If President is Democrat:

* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is helping protect the people of the world from tyrant governments"

* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "we cant afford this many wars, we must instead focus on our own problems, we must focus on (insert recent catastrophe, that's inevitable in the US like a wild fire in the West Coast or a tornado in the East Coast)"

If President is Republican:

* If President Raises Military Expenditure: "he is being imperialist, we don't want this blood in our hands"

* If President Lowers Military Expenditure: "he is letting the tyrants like him do their bidding, remember the little kids in Africa, if we don't step in, who will?"

Beautiful!

------
thomasmarriott
"I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for
extensive empire and self government."

Full context of "empire":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty)

------
anbop
One thing that obviates the need for colonies is international trade. You used
to need to actually hold countries to make sure you had minerals, rubber,
spices, etc. With the formalization of trade it's not as necessary.

------
billfruit
As commentor mentioned at the original site, I think the article would have
benefitted from discussion how Texas and Louisiana ended with the USA. Also of
the territories taken from Mexico in the early to mid nineteenth century.

------
jammygit
There is a Hardcore History episode about Roosevelt that included a horrifying
section on the Philippines. Its a fantastic episode but its unsettling too

