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

“To realize their vision, the founders created a distinct political category for the frontier: territory. The revolution had been fought by a union of states, but those states’ borders became ill-defined and even overlapped as they reached westward. Rather than dividing the frontier among the states, the republic’s leaders brokered deals by which none of the Atlantic states would extend to the Mississippi, which marked the western edge of the country. Instead, western land would go to the federal government. It would be administered not as states, but as territories.”

American frontier experience and its westward expansion in the 19th century is part of the same trajectory as its later overseas reach into the Pacific and Caribbean. Both types of expansion used the term “territory.” In both cases, such territories raised the question of borders and their enforcement, as well as the government jurisdiction and other legal questions. In the case of some American possessions, such as Puerto Rico, these problems lasted well into the 20th century.

“In 1828 the state of Georgia declared the Cherokee constitution invalid and demanded the Cherokees’ land. President Andrew Jackson approved. An Indian nation ‘would not be countenanced,’ he declared. The Cherokees must either submit to Georgia’s authority or head west, to the territories. The Supreme Court declared Georgia’s actions unconstitutional. But high-court rulings meant little in the face of the squatter onslaught. Cherokee landowners watched with alarm as Georgia divided the Cherokee Nation into parcels and started distributing it to whites by lottery.”

This quotation typifies some aspects of the early American state’s expansion. On the one hand, the highest court attempted to put an end to state-level actions that sought to push out the Cherokees from their own land. On the other hand, a US president sided with Georgia in line with this campaign of ethnic cleansing. Yet ultimately, it was the facts on the ground that determined the course of history—an overwhelming number of white squatter settlers displacing the Cherokee beyond government policies and making their presence permanent.

“The Guano Islands Act, the Supreme Court’s ruling, and President Harrison’s backing of that ruling collectively established that the borders of the United States needn’t be confined to the continent […] [I]n the decades to come, it would be the foundation for the United States’ entire overseas empire. The second legacy was strategic. The same features that made the islands attractive rookeries for seabirds made them, decades later, desirable sites for airfields. The pointillist empire that the United States built after the Second World War would rely in part on those nineteenth-century guano claims. The third and most immediate legacy was agricultural.”

The American annexation of the largely uninhabited guano islands in the 19th century had both short-term and long-term consequences. The short-term consequence was the ability to maintain the necessary food supply for America’s significant population growth at that time. The far-reaching consequences were the expansion of the American Empire beyond the mainland and the multifaceted use of the guano islands, which became increasingly strategic in the context of the Cold War.

“A year later, the young historian Frederick Jackson Turner offered a similar reflection, stating it as a hypothesis, known today as the massively influential ‘frontier thesis.’ The frontier, Turner argued, had been the great regenerating force in US life—the source of democracy, individualism, practicality, and freedom. And yet, Turner noted, according to the census, the frontier had disappeared as of 1890. The obvious danger was that the national character would die with it.”

The frontier thesis posited a connection between American westward expansion across the continent and traditional American values such as rugged individualism, democracy, and freedom. Since the continent was conquered, there was a concern that it would negatively impact the “national character.” It was at that time that the Spanish-American War (1898) allowed the US to expand overseas, along with the annexation of Hawaii, to create the Greater United States and thus continue “taming” the frontier. Of course, the idealism of such values does not reflect the forced displacement of the Indigenous people and their population collapse from disease, war, and starvation since the colonization of the continent began—nor does it reflect the lower status of the people in the new territories.

“The war with Spain gave rise to the only moment in US history when cartographers aggressively rejected the logo map. In its place they offered maps of the empire. Publishers, cashing in on empire fever, rushed to put out atlases showcasing the country’s new dimensions.”

Typically, American logo maps depict the mainland. On some, Alaska and Hawaii are not represented to scale. This depiction of the US implicitly prioritized the mainland—and the mainland identity. However, America’s formal colonization of the former Spanish possessions, such as Puerto Rico, was an exception, with maps depicting the overseas territories.

“White soldiers also made use of a tried-and-true favorite from back home: […]. They sang it proudly, as in the extremely-hard-to-misinterpret ballad “I Don’t Like a […] Nohow.” The [B]lack soldiers in the Philippines heard this and winced. They connected the racism that pervaded the war to the racism they had just left at home—the 1890s were the high noon of lynching.”

Throughout the book, Daniel Immerwahr underscores the fact that race is an even more important factor when one accounts for the Greater United States, not just the mainland. The American colonial annexation of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, the perception that the Filipinos were incapable of governing themselves, and the racial slurs of white US troops are at the nexus of imperialism, colonialism, and race.

“Cuba also agreed, as part of the price of getting [the military governor of Cuba Leonard] Wood to leave, to lease a forty-five-square-mile port to the United States for military use. Guantánamo Bay, as the leased land was called, would technically remain Cuban territory, but the United States would have ‘complete jurisdiction and control’ over it. This was, to put it mildly, an extraordinary deal. It gave the United States many of the benefits of colonization without the responsibility.”

Unlike the annexation of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from Spain after the Spanish-American War (1898), Cuba remained nominally independent. It was at this point that it diverged from Spain’s other colonies. However, until the Cuban Revolution (1959), the United States used the Platt Amendment that allowed it to “intervene” in Cuba’s affairs to protect its corporate interests and maintain neocolonial control. Furthermore, Cuba gave in to the American demands of a decades-long lease over Guantánamo Bay, which became an important point of control after World War II in America’s pointillist empire. Having no responsibility over a large territory, as in formal colonial situations of the past, was one of the benefits.

“Although the overseas territories had dropped off the maps, they were, for a certain type of professional, extremely interesting places. They functioned as laboratories, spaces for bold experimentation where ideas could be tried with practically no resistance, oversight, or consequences.”

Their geographic proximity to the mainland and having some laws apply but not others allowed for the new American colonies to be used as testing grounds for decades to come. In some cases, this testing was more benign, such as rapid city planning without local input. Other times, it was more ethically questionable, such as the testing used to cure hookworm in Puerto Rico and, later, birth control trials. In all these ways, the colonies were convenient places for America to evade its own laws and professed values.

“I can get a damn fine job here and am tempted to take it. It would be ideal except for the Porto Ricans—they are beyond doubt the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere […] What the island needs is not public health work, but a tidal wave or something to totally exterminate the population. It might then be livable. I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off 8 and transplanting cancer into several more. The latter has not resulted in any fatalities so far.” 

Written in 1931 in Puerto Rico by the mainland doctor Cornelius Rhoads, this excerpt from a letter displays the intersection of racism, imperialism, and disregard for the Hippocratic oath. Whereas a 2003 investigation did not reveal that Rhoads had actually killed his patients, the publication of this letter shortly after its release negatively shaped the Puerto Ricans’ perception of the US’ intentions, leading to decades of mistrusting mainland doctors. It also shows the way the colonies were used as laboratories, from architecture to medical testing bypassing ethical standards.

“A fairer way to put it would be to say that Manuel Quezon embodied the contradictions of colonialism. The desire for the colonizer’s approval, the demand for autonomy, conciliation, violence—Quezon contained multitudes. One journalist compared talking with him to trying to pick up mercury with a fork.”

Manuel Quezon was the President of the Philippine commonwealth (1935-1945) as the US was preparing the islands for formal independence. As such, he embodied the ambiguous relationship that some colonized people developed with the United States as their colonizer. They grew increasingly economically dependent on the US mainland, which meant that cutting such ties was perceived as damaging. On the other hand, the political, military, and cultural domination of the colonized people made them aspire to independence. Such examples highlight the complex relationship between the mainland United States and its overseas territories.

“Life in a war zone was a life shaped by precaution. It meant carrying around a gas mask when out […] It meant obeying strict curfews. It meant ‘blackouts’: extinguishing all light by which Japanese planes might navigate at night. But the safeguards weren’t only against invaders. The military also insisted on extraordinary precautions against the people of Hawai’i themselves. Hawai’i was ‘enemy country,’ as the secretary of the navy saw it, with a suspect population, more than one-third of which was of Japanese ancestry.”

During World War II, the US federal government incarcerated up to 120,000 Japanese Americans after forcibly relocating them from the Pacific Coast of the mainland US Most Japanese Americans in Hawaii did not face relocation, excluding some first-generation Japanese American non-citizen men. However, Hawaiians lived under martial law and a general cloud of suspicion, facing forced vaccination and fingerprinting. The plight of Japanese Americans during the Second World War highlights the difficult relationship between the mainland and the territories, as well as race and national identity.

“Had the siege of Bataan pitted Japan against the United States, it would have been dramatic enough. But three-quarters of MacArthur’s men there were Filipino. The siege thus layered political questions atop military ones. Would the Filipinos fight for their empire? And would their empire fight for them?”

When the Japanese invaded the Philippines in December 1941, the US troops abandoned Manila. The US choice to support Europe at the expense of the territories raised many uncomfortable questions against an already uneasy relationship between the US mainland and the overseas islands. Whether the Filipinos, who were mistreated by the US during the Philippine-American War and as colonial subjects, would support the colonial master was one such question. Ultimately, the Philippines lived under occupation, and some collaborated with Japan. It was not until 1945 that the islands were liberated. The absence of the Philippines’ high death toll—over a million—in collective American memory when it comes to World War II is one of the aspects of America’s “hidden” empire.

“Operating this vast mechanism drew the United States abruptly into world affairs, giving it business in places it had formerly cared little about. Yet it also left the United States less interested in formal empire. Together with innovations in chemistry and industrial engineering, the US mastery of logistics would diminish the value of colonies and inaugurate a new pattern of global power, based less on claiming large swaths of land and more on controlling small points.”

World War II acted as a watershed moment in American history. Not only did the United States become a superpower after this global conflict, but the way in which it operated came to differ from traditional empires. The US relied on globalization instead of colonization, through technological advancement, the English language, logistics, and US-based standardization.

“Instead, the United States and its allies did something highly unusual: they won a war and gave up territory. The United States led the charge, setting free its largest colony (the Philippines), folding up its occupations, nudging its European counterparts to abandon their empires, and demobilizing its army.”

Typically, a victorious party may acquire territory in a war. However, the United States gave up territory instead. One reason for this unusual act was the global tide of decolonization around the world, which made holding onto colonies more difficult. Second, the United States transformed into an informal empire by using its guano islands and military bases in foreign countries, technological advancement, standardization, and the English language to project its power.

“The island was, in many ways, the perfect site to test new medical techniques. It was close to the mainland, with doctors and nurses who spoke English and were trained in US methods. Whereas most states had laws outlawing contraception as well as aggressive ‘bluenose brigades’ to enforce them, Puerto Rico had legal birth control and an obliging government. And, of course, Puerto Ricans had a history of serving as subjects for experimental medical research, from anemia to mustard gas. Their poverty and marginal position in US society made them all-too-convenient fodder.” 

The proximity of the mainland coast of the US, race, and class, and the ambiguous legal standing of the American overseas territories allowed Puerto Rico to be used as a testing ground. In some cases, the testing genuinely sought to eradicate serious health conditions linked to the hookworm, but not the socioeconomic factors that exacerbated the reinfection with this parasite. There were also darker cases at times, bypassing ethics and informed consent to test birth control and even mustard gas.

“After the war, the United States resumed buying natural rubber, which it used alongside man-made rubber, but never again would it depend on plantations. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, once again interfering with supply lines, rubber prices shot up, creating a minor shortage. Manufacturers simply opened their taps and flooded the market with synthetic rubber. Rubber—once the cause of war, colonization, and mass death—became a commodity that Washington could be cavalier about.”

The extraction of natural resources was one of the causes of colonialism in general. It became especially important to Europe in the late 19th century to accommodate the continent’s population growth. Access to resources and resource scarcity was also one of the key causes of war. The author argues that the development of artificial rubber and plastics rendered the fight for resources unnecessary in some cases. Of course, the reliance on energy resources such as oil and gas, and other commodities like grain, persists into the present and continues to contribute to resource- and resource-market-linked conflicts.

“Aviation, knocked-down shipping, wireless communication, cryptography, chloroquine, DDT, and world-proofing. These were disparate technologies, but what united them was their effect on movement. They allowed the United States to move easily through foreign lands it didn’t control, substituting technology for territory.”

World War II served as a watershed moment for the United States. Not only did the United States arise as one of the two superpowers (along with the Soviet Union) out of this global conflict, but it was also able to modify its imperial modus operandi. Instead of remaining a formal empire ruling far-off lands, the US focused on using military bases as small but significant points of control. In addition, Americans exerted neocolonial influence through economic domination and soft power through technology, standardization, and the English language.

“The United States wasn’t just an economic superpower, it was a military one, too. Its vast armed forces had been agents of standardization during the Second World War, and they continued to be so afterward, during the Cold War. Washington flooded the world with its arms and equipment. In accepting them, foreign militaries had to adopt US standards as well.”

Standardization—and its practical applications in industrial production—became one of the key “empire-killing technologies” that buttressed the rise of the US as a superpower after World War II (264). By being the driving force behind standardizing military equipment and spare parts, the US was able to subordinate foreign countries in an unequal relationship while benefitting financially. This process became even more integrated with the establishment of NATO, in which the US was the dominant player. That the arms industry was one of the key areas where this process occurred also highlights the extent to which the American military power—an important aspect of formal empires—contributed to the growth of the American informal empire after World War II.

“English has spread like an invasive weed, implanting itself in nearly every habitat. It has created a world full of people ready and able to assist English speakers, wherever they may roam. A world almost designed for the convenience of the United States.”

After World War II, the English language came to dominate the world as the main foreign language used internationally. It helped solidify American power abroad. However, the author uses terms like “virus” and “an invasive weed” to highlight the scope and scale of this process and the ambivalent relationship between foreign countries and using English when perceived as an instrument of American power.

“‘It is the ultimate act of intellectual colonialism,’ sighed the director of an internet provider in Russia. ‘The product comes from America so we must either adapt to English or stop using it. That is the right of business. But if you are talking about a technology that is supposed to open the world to hundreds of millions of people you are joking. This just makes the world into new sorts of haves and have nots.’ The president of France, Jacques Chirac, deemed the English-dominant internet ‘a major risk for humanity.’”

The dissemination of the English language around the world to become the dominant foreign language from business and science to pop culture was one of the chief ways of projecting American power after 1945. English carried with it an American perception of the world. This process generally did not occur through the direct use of force. However, in some cases, such as the rise of the Internet, there was no choice but to use English and the Latin alphabet in programming languages. Some countries considered this to be a form of neocolonialism.

“The United States […] did not abandon empire after the Second World War. Rather, it reshuffled its imperial portfolio, divesting itself of large colonies and investing in military bases, tiny specks of semi-sovereignty strewn around the globe. Today there are roughly eight hundred such bases, some of the most important of them on islands.”

As the United States transformed into an informal empire out of World War II, for a time it became much more powerful than its former colonial counterpart. The author refers to the US as a “pointillist empire” because it consolidated control over small specks of land all around the world. In some cases, these were the refurbished guano islands that could serve as airfields or used for radio communication. In other cases, these were military bases and other types of installations in foreign countries.

“The more that [American] military fought, the more Japanese firms profited. The Korean War had been a godsend. The Vietnam War helped, too. The men who fought it drank Kirin beer, carried Nikon cameras, rode Honda motorbikes, and dropped bombs with Sony parts. The polyethylene body bags they came home in? Made in Japan.” 

As the US was phasing out its formal occupation of Japan after World War II, it maintained its military presence in the country and dominated Japan’s foreign policy. At the same time, the unequal relationship between the US and Japan provided economic benefits to Japan by restructuring and energizing its postwar economy. American wars in Korea and Vietnam relied on Japanese products—from cameras to bombs and body bags. The undercurrent in this quotation is the increased number of wars in which the US has been involved after 1945 after becoming a superpower—another key aspect of the American Empire.

“Yet no amount of precaution could change the basic fact that one country was stationing its troops in another’s land. It’s not hard to imagine how the people of the United States would have reacted to a Saudi base in, say, Texas. In fact, it’s not even necessary to imagine. In the eighteenth century, the stationing of British soldiers in North America was so repellent to the colonists that it fueled their revolution.”

After 1945, the United States amassed an estimated 800 military bases around the world, many of which are in foreign countries. Military bases are the physical enforcement of America’s informal empire. The relationship between the locals and the stationed US troops has been challenging. In some cases, like Japan and South Korea, the American bases have not only been the source of tensions for geopolitical reasons but also the source of violent crime.