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

A Historical Review by Harvey A. Sniffen III

In “How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States” historian Daniel Immerwahr sets out to alter the American public’s popular yet truncated understanding of America as a shining city upon a hill, stretching from the original Atlantic colonies, across the Great Plains, and onto the Pacific coastline.1 Immerwahr is adamant, from the onset, that the main focus of his book is to change this zeitgeist. Arguing, that the United States of America is an empire constituted of an enigma of non-continental overseas territories which considers millions of people in its polity as not “wholly” American according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and often to the perspective of “mainland” Americans. 2 Throughout the text, the author relies heavily on primary source material, particularly photographs, maps, and census data to substantiate his argument of American empire through the greying of American identity in space and experience. In doing so, Immerwahr has created a rich text which is easy to read and just as easy to suggest to those potentially interested in a popular history text.

As historical texts go, Immerwahr’s book is not necessarily groundbreaking in terms of research. Citations do note hands-on archival work with materials from the Philippines, Hawaii, D.C., and New York City. However, the strength of the work does not necessarily come from an angle where Immerwahr seeks to impress his academic peers with unique rarities found deep within the archives. Instead, Immerwahr shines with his ability to create a contemporary dialogue with historical figures and material through the intermingling of visual primary source documentation in a short truncated manner. Take, for example, FDR’s famed draft speeches to Congress addressing the Japanese attack on “Pearl Harbor.” Immerwahr is able to visually detail several line edits where FDR struggles with the notion of treating American territories such as the Philippines and Guam as holly American and a valid reason to draw the public into war even though these territories are, in fact, sovereign American land. 3

This act of intermingling and creating a palatable presentation is important as the question Immerwahr is asking, is America an empire, goes against the popularized political rhetoric of both Republican and Democratic politicians, and the shared American story of a benevolent republic founded upon anti-colonial revolution. To answer this question, Immerwahr flips the perspective around and instead looks from outside of the mainland United States to formulate his thesis. 4 Immerwahr argues that the United States is not an empire in the notion of 19th-century European imperialism where direct force and occupation was necessary to force a trade imbalance. Instead, today’s American empire is of a unique contemporary sort. 5 In the second half of the text, “The Pointillist Empire,” Immerwahr describes a hidden empire. One in which American military presence has receded from the streets of the city center and into the safety and comfort of the hundreds of military bases which sprout up as a logistical pinpoint network across the globe. American military hegemony still has the proximity to physical trade networks and economic centers as it did during WWII, particularly in the sense of naval superiority, but 20th and 21st-century technologies have made the American military just a button push away. Furthermore, American market dominance through logistics and standardization, along with the commodification of capital in US dollars has allowed the “invisible hand of the market” to become the leverage point the State Department once overtly assumed.

Immerwahr’s argument, in regards to terminology, is certainly substantiated. If empire is geopolitical persuasion through force or the threat of force, then certainly the U.S. military’s “pointillist” position across the globe would suffice the definition. However, the question Immerwahr often asks, why does the United States distance itself from colonial power as it reaches its maximum territorial size at the end of WWII, authenticates the root of his argument in that the American empire is a form of neo-colonialism. In drawing comparison to previously known empires, such as the French, English, or Dutch commonality can be found between the political and economic experiences of the occupied but less so in terms of the threat of force. Filipinos and Algerians annexation originates through force, but after relations are settled both territories are promised full citizenship and access to the mainland. However, in both cases, the mainland government would continually thwart immigration while leaders in both nations relied upon white supremacy rhetoric to constitute the occupied as others undeserving of full citizenship. Puerto Ricans, who experienced a long history of medical experimentation and labor exploitation, are granted birthright citizenship and access to the United States but are not guaranteed constitutional rights on the island itself allowing for continued economic exploitation to this day. The people of Guam enlist in the armed forces at numbers substantially higher than mainlanders but are not guaranteed birthright citizenship. The people of the Marianas Islands, all U.S. citizens, weren’t guaranteed federal minimum wage protections for the first 19 years as a commonwealth which enabled a quasi-legal “made in America” sweatshop industry. Immerwahr points to examples over and over again, where the American neo-colonial empire is not militarily enforced but economically and politically enabled. If we look at empire in antiquity as a form of force, contemporary empire is conducted through the capture of state and market interest.

Immerwah’s argument is not perfect though and falls into the failures that leftist critiques of American economic hegemony often do. There is no smoking gun or figurehead of invisible strings dictating state action. This is where I find some form of critique to be made. Immerwahr doesn’t point to the State Department or CIA involvement in nation-building in the Middle East. Where, for example, the long proven history of CIA involvement in the coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq. The democratically elected prime minister who successfully campaigned on the nationalization of British Petroleum oil. Immerwah also avoids South American countries like Brazil where the State Department was involved in installing the anti-Democratic and pro-American interests government of the Fifth Brazilian Republic in 1964. Several other examples can be made of American military and State Department involvement in coups and occupations which have had clear American interests at heart, particularly in the sense of banana republics. However, the exclusion or distinction between these examples may be due to the lack of long term territorial occupation that Immerwahr appears to be following.

Immerwahr also infrequently involves the arguments or theories of the field in which he writes. He does praise those who originated the arguments of the pointillist empire and the geographers who inspired his critique of the “logo” map. However, the incorporation of historians who focus on network history could further substantiate his materialistic and logistics based arguments. Citing historians like Victoria de Grazia and her theory on the “market empire” would further authenticate Immerwahr’s argument on American market efficiency superseding the need for state involvement. Also, citing historian Niall Ferguson and his “square network” theory could further support Immerwahr’s materialistic perspective and the lack of overt physical presence needed by late 20th and 21st-century American military interest due to technological advancement and decentralized communication platforms.

‘‘How to Hide an Empire” stands out as a potential pop-history classic due to Immerwahr’s ability to craft a neatly packaged narrative that focuses on various popular arguments which one may find useful in critiquing contemporary society. A “coloring” of the American population through census data allows for one to pushback against the American lore of white supremacy. A history of American occupation in the Philippines and Puerto Rico provides an ability for the reader to pushback against the notion of a benevolent American foreign policy as popularized by the Cold War era. And an acknowledgment of American enterprise adopting foreign technologies would position American markets not at the center of development but as an important component in an international scene of scientific and technological development. The main significance of the text, in my opinion, is the ease in which one can hand off a preponderance of leftists and historically based arguments that can be easily digested by anyone willing and open to learning them.

In totality, Immerwahr’s book, “How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States” offers up a well-sourced and defended argument criticizing American economic and military hegemony throughout the 20th and 21st-century. Immerwahr’s main thesis, that American markets and global military presence, synergistically acted as a form of neo-colonial empire. Immerwahr’s inclusion of photography, census data, and primary source reproductions along with his ability to craft a succinct narrative that offers readers a quick and easy inroad into the histories of American military, economic, and nation-building which all go on to further substantiate his thesis. In doing so, Immerwahr’s goal of critiquing American hegemony in the eyes of the American public will surely come to fruition.

Bibliography

• Immerwahr, Daniel, How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States — New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019, page 8.
• Ibid., 10
• Ibid., 3, 5–7
• Ibid., 16, 17
• Ibid., 398, 399