Daniel Immerwahr. How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. 2019.

I've been reading through this book over the last few days, and don't really know how to feel about it. For context, it's a book that is making very big waves among historians of American empire and U.S. foreign relations. It also seems to be selling well among the general public.

The book's main argument is that Americans have traditionally held a very blinkered idea of what the United States really is, geographically speaking. Most Americans conceptualize the United States in terms of what Immerwahr refers to as the "logo map"--or the traditional map of the American mainland, often with Hawaii and Alaska shoved into the map's corners as insets. What is ultimately missing from these maps are the numerous territories--places that are not states, but still controlled by the United States. This he calls the Greater United States (here's a map of Immerwhar's rendering of the Greater United States).

Immerwahr shows how Americans--historically and today--don't see these territories or the people that live in them as part of America. Puerto Ricans, for instance, are not U.S. citizens but U.S. "nationals." There rights are legislatively, not constitutionally mandated, meaning they can be taken away at any time. Puerto Ricans, like all other U.S. nationals, also don't have the right to vote or have congressional representation. They can, however, serve in the military--and do so in large numbers. For most Americans, these territories and their people are hidden away, not often thought of as part of the United States or part of an American empire.

The framework of American empire is the main subject of Immerwahr's book. Immerwahr argues that from the United States' founding through World War II, the U.S. sought to gain control over large swathes of land. During that span, politicians would determine whether that land and its inhabitants would indefinitely remain territories or whether they would eventually turn into actual states within the Union. Of course, race played a significant role in this: lands that were populated by whites were far more likely to gain statehood.

By the end of World War II, the rise of national liberation movements made colonial empires difficult to handle. The United States began to shed its colonial empire, granting independence to the Phillipines for instance. But American empire, Immerwahr argues, did not end. It merely manifested itself in new ways. Advancements in technology made it easier for the United States to have imperial control without the need for occupying large tracts of land. The United States after WWII became a "pointillist empire." Instead of taking control of entire countries, the U.S. protected their imperial possessions by controlling tiny specks of dots on the world's map. Immerwahr focuses particularly on resource-rich islands in the Pacific and military bases throughout the world. The latest manifestation of America's empire has been the U.S. War on Terror, which Immerwahr terms a "War of Points"--a war conducted by GPS and drones, not large armies attempting to take key pieces of territory.

It's an interesting book, for sure. It really makes you rethink the geographical contours of the United States and how limiting our traditional understanding of empire might be. I don't know where I stand on Immerwahr's argument. I don't believe that the transition from a colonial empire to a pointillist empire was as clear-cut as he presents. For instance, the naval theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan was talking about gaining control of key nodes--the world's ports--at the height of America's colonial empire in the late 1800s. I also think he overestimates the degree to which territory--whether pointillist or not--plays in the War on Terror. I think the argument can be made that the War on Terror is largely a deterritorialized conflict, where national boundaries don't matter.

I'm just as split on the book's style as I am its argument. For one, it's well written. On the other hand, it often slips into tangential stories (like 3 pages on the author's personal relationship with a noted German chemist) and can get too informal. Some of the writing would fit in easily at Buzzfeed, like the chapter title: "Every Thing you Thought you Wanted to Know about Guano but Were too Afraid to Ask." There's also pop culture references galore--to Austin Powers, James Bond, and more. Some people might like this informal tone, but I often found it jarring and out of place.

Overall, though, I think it's been a good book. It may not change the minds of every person that reads it, but it will at least make them think seriously about their preconceived notions of American empire.

Few days ago I asked a question "Looking for a book that looks at how Soviet Russia and later Soviet Union implemented a new political system in Russia in 1920s &1930s". Nobody replied there so perhaps someone will see it here. Any suggestions about political history of Soviet Union in 1920s and 1930s would be really amazing as well!

​

And a bit unrelated question, but how do you keep track of any news books on a subject you like? I enjoy reading about early years of the Soviet Union and every once in a while I simply go to Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk and search for new releases in history book section hoping to see something new that fits my interests, but there surely must be a better way to see new books. Plus Amazon's search engine for books is near unusable.

I've just finished listening to the BBC In Our Time podcast regarding the Inca Empire. It was fascinating and I'd really like to go more into depth of the history of the Inca Empire. What can a historian recommend for a general overview, and some more in depth book on pre-European contact Inca.

Thanks in advance!

Does anyone know how good the "a very short introduction to" series are as a basic start to general background? Specifically those around medieval arms and armour including the introduction to medieval Britain?

Any good books on FDR?

Hello! I recently finished Shattered Sword at the recommendation of this subreddit and loved it. I particularly enjoyed that I did not need advanced knowledge of the Battle of Midway to understand the book and the emphasis on dispelling common myths. I was hoping to find a similar style book about the Battle of Stalingrad. All I currently know of that battle is what is written on Wikipedia and Enemy at the Gates. Thanks for your time!

Can anyone recommend resources on historiography of high & late middle age economy, particularly in the development of commerce? I'm familiar with Robert Lopez and well as Wallerstein's Modern World-System but both works are 50 years old. Is there a contemporary review paper that captures the state of the field, or anything else one would care to suggest?

Thank you!