How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States
&gt; [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.<p>...<p>&gt; 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]<p>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.<p>It&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>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.<p>As for the pervasive racist beliefs, they had nothing to do with colonialism. Conflating these things simply obscures the underlying dynamics. It&#x27;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&#x27;s facially and tragically false. It&#x27;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.