Reviews for Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism

The average rating for Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-07-03 00:00:00 Loanne Thompson An interesting, yet often dry analysis of the formation and current state of the American empire. Worth reading for those who seek to understand the intricacies of American expansionism.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-01-15 00:00:00 Kare Dicken I hesitate to call anything trash, but this one is nothing but rhetorical nonsense powered by Mr. Nugent's obsessive need to denounce manifest destiny and things he sees as intricately attached: white people most of all. He gropes for facts when none seem readily convenient, editorializes as often as humanly possible on those few facts he had and seems to confuse the definition of historian and ethicist all in one swoop. I didn't know anyone could feel so morally superior. America, Nugent tells us, fuels itself on expansion. It started out by claiming "Transappalachia," what we might loosely call the regions between the Appalachian mountains and the Mississippi. Gradually, the US expanded to encompass the Louisiana Territory, Florida, Texas, the West and out toward the open sea. And let's not forget Canada! Oh yes, the US government did try to invade Canada more than once. Mr. Nugent wouldn't let you forget that fact for one second. Where does that leave us these days? Why America still wants to expand of course! Iraq, Afghanistan, you name it! But don't take my sarcastic quips bias you - Nugent does a good enough job of that himself. Let's take a look at some arguments he sets up: Why white people America Had No Claim To Transappalachia: Essentially, this one's all about who lived there initially and had the highest population: the Native Americans! They, in fact, had a claim seeing as they'd been there forever. Why France America Had No Claim to the Louisiana Territory: Essentially, the Louisiana Territory had been a Spanish territory awarded back to France under Napoleonic pressure under the condition that France would make no move to give the land to Britain or the US. And, surprise surprise, Napoleon reneged on his promise! I am simply shocked...shocked. Thus, the US had no legitimate claim to the land even after it was bought by treaty from France. Let's consider these two arguments side by side: Nugent alleges that only the Native Americans had a realistic claim to Transappalachia due to the sheer size of their numbers. Technically, the area was considered a British territory and ceded by the British, but we'll ignore that as best we can for the time being. Now, the Spanish had a legitimate claim to the Louisiana territory and ceded it to the French under duress. Napoleon failed to uphold the French bargain (I remained shocked) and sold the land to the US - which technically should not own it due a null contract that they had no part in. Ummm ok. For these arguments to cohere, we must establish who actually had rightful claim to colonial possessions - the natives or the colonial powers. Is the Natives who had sheer numbers in both Transappalachia and Louisiana or the powers that they entered into alliance with and fought with? Because only when we can successfully established legitimate ownership can we establish who rightfully or wrongly took what from whom. Nugent argues both the Natives and Powers had ownership when its convenient to his thesis that America's evil. I'll let you ponder what Chomsky would say. But faulty rationale isn't just the sole problem Nugent has. Sometimes, he likes to dig for facts that emphasize no particular point. For example, let's look a beautiful historical fact from page 80 concerning the Chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Peter Porter: "Speaker Clay appointed Peter B. Porter of Black Rock, New York, now part of Buffalo, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. (Not incidentally, Porter was one of those border businessmen materially interested in Upper Canada's economic potential.)" Proof? Nope. In fact, most of the war hawks were western and southern congressmen - Henry Clay in the House, John Calhoun in the Senate. Porter is not even traditionally listed as a war hawk. This is mere editorialized material. Now this review is not to say that the US did not act in some morally reprehensible ways in regards to expansion. We absolutely did, but the argument made here is that everything we did was somehow awful and always related to expansion. Instead of treating the American experiment as a flawed but progressing narrative, it's merely a repeatedly failing farce that we should all disown and refute in order to cleanse ourselves of. Well, I'm sorry, sir. This nation has flaws that we atone for the best we can, but I refused to be ashamed of things that I am not personally responsible for. In short, if you go searching for a reason to be ashamed of America, you'll find it here regardless of its logically coherent or not. My advice is to live your life the best you can, fight injustice however you can and work to make your country a better place instead of positing grand narratives of how awful it is.