![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What a good read! Daniel Immerwahr's How to Hide an Empire: A Short History of the Greater United States is a very readable history of the Greater United States, i.e. a history with deliberate focus on the US's territories. Page-wise, most the book is about the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and on the rank after that comes Alaska, Guam and Hawai'i, with the smaller islands and various military bases to follow.
On the broader level it's a history of the US's outlook towards its territories first as consequence of colonialism (all empires were doing it at the time, so why not get some) which eventually turns into globalisation and an "empire of bases" as colonialism became unfashionable. Immerwahr starts with the expansion of the US westward from the east coast, using the argument that the creation and annexation of mainland territories was in the continuum of colonisation in the claiming of land and displacement of the Native Americans, with Immerwahr drawing a straight line to why some mainland territories became states very quickly, with other territories were prevented from becoming states for as long as possible because of their non-white majority (Alaska, Hawai'i), while other territories remain disenfranchised (Puerto Rico in particular, for its large population and impact to the mainland).
For me on a personal level the extended history of the Philippines as a US colony is fascinating (a SEAsian neighbour I continue to learn more about, as I know comparatively so little of her), in how they took it from Spain, didn't know what to do with it, and then it ended up being the site for the only US-Japan land battle during WWII, during which (as which Immerwahr reports) many US GIs didn't even know the Philippines was part of the US when they landed. Puerto Rico's history is a little more well-known, I think, but appreciate his further detailing how human experimentation led to chemotherapy and birth control, but only the good results are remembered on the mainland, while PR remembers the human cost.
What Immerwahr does really well is in drawing lines from [this] policy or action led to [this] consequence, even for things that don't look obvious or would be more interesting in further detail. As an example, he argues that Liverpool UK saw a high concentration of modern rock bands (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and so on) compared to other British cities because Liverpool is near a US base, which after WWII saw the import of American music by US military personnel stationed there, which influenced the locals to develop their own music.
The later part of Immerwahr's book lays out his argument that the US let go of its colonies after WWII due to the rise of the colonised in forming nation states, but also that the reasons for old-school colonisation became no longer relevant because of the arrival of new technologies for communication, resource control and logistics (i.e. globalisation) which means that only strategic bases and holdings are only necessary, especially military-wise. But the imperial mindset remains, as can be seen by the gulf war and uhhhh everything going on the middle east.
On the broader level it's a history of the US's outlook towards its territories first as consequence of colonialism (all empires were doing it at the time, so why not get some) which eventually turns into globalisation and an "empire of bases" as colonialism became unfashionable. Immerwahr starts with the expansion of the US westward from the east coast, using the argument that the creation and annexation of mainland territories was in the continuum of colonisation in the claiming of land and displacement of the Native Americans, with Immerwahr drawing a straight line to why some mainland territories became states very quickly, with other territories were prevented from becoming states for as long as possible because of their non-white majority (Alaska, Hawai'i), while other territories remain disenfranchised (Puerto Rico in particular, for its large population and impact to the mainland).
For me on a personal level the extended history of the Philippines as a US colony is fascinating (a SEAsian neighbour I continue to learn more about, as I know comparatively so little of her), in how they took it from Spain, didn't know what to do with it, and then it ended up being the site for the only US-Japan land battle during WWII, during which (as which Immerwahr reports) many US GIs didn't even know the Philippines was part of the US when they landed. Puerto Rico's history is a little more well-known, I think, but appreciate his further detailing how human experimentation led to chemotherapy and birth control, but only the good results are remembered on the mainland, while PR remembers the human cost.
What Immerwahr does really well is in drawing lines from [this] policy or action led to [this] consequence, even for things that don't look obvious or would be more interesting in further detail. As an example, he argues that Liverpool UK saw a high concentration of modern rock bands (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and so on) compared to other British cities because Liverpool is near a US base, which after WWII saw the import of American music by US military personnel stationed there, which influenced the locals to develop their own music.
The later part of Immerwahr's book lays out his argument that the US let go of its colonies after WWII due to the rise of the colonised in forming nation states, but also that the reasons for old-school colonisation became no longer relevant because of the arrival of new technologies for communication, resource control and logistics (i.e. globalisation) which means that only strategic bases and holdings are only necessary, especially military-wise. But the imperial mindset remains, as can be seen by the gulf war and uhhhh everything going on the middle east.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
