Tougher read, but great book and perspective on how war (besides the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam) have shaped what we now know as America...

Usually books that try to reframe history are a bit heavy-handed. This book does better than that. It has a clear separation of opinions, facts and arguments, alongside an appreciation for the motives of the people involved. I also liked how the book focussed mainly on US history up to WWII. Most Americans are old enough to remember, or smart enough to figure out the tragedies, ambiguities and hegemony of recent US wars; this book extends that not-so-glorious understanding back to the colonial period.

This was fantastic - it looks at the gaps between the military endeavours that form our national myth at other events and people that lead to US expansion over the continent and beyond. I was taught about the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars 1 and 2, and the rest was glossed over. The stories of how we as a nation invaded Mexico unprovoked and annexed half their territory, and how we dismantled the Spanish Empire for our own ends and annexed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, to name two, aren't as prominent in our national hagiography because they go against the myth of being provoked into wars in self defense or for just cause. This is very accessible and anyone who is interested in US history and wants to learn the back story of Empire might enjoy this.

An explanation of America viewed through the lens of the many wars in our history (and pre-history) from 1600-2000. The overall story is told through nine biographies - Samuel de Champlain, William Penn, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, U.S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur (and his father Arthur), and Colin Powell. The most interesting chapters to me were the first three, on Champlain, Penn and Washington. Of course Champlain was French but his interactions with native Americans (aka Indians) created one template for how the colonial interlopers might interact with these incredibly varied tribal people. The authors contrast the French approach in native relations to the English methods with several interesting observations (p 43-44) and how the Anglo model used in the brutal colonization of Ireland in the 1600s also informed their approach to the natives in North America. Something I never considered before. Fred Anderson is an eminent historian and an expert on the Seven Years War (aka the French and Indian War), his book 'Crucible of War' was outstanding. So you might expect more insight and detail out of this early portion of the book and you do. There is a lot (almost too much) to unpack in every chapter however and it is a well referenced and heavily footnoted work. One minor quibble is that there is no single listing of references or recommended reading. The overall theme of 'Dominion' is to refocus the lens of history on the imperialistic and frankly racial basis of America's wars, especially early in our history and this argument is repeated throughout. Perhaps not '1619 Project' level historical revision (although I have not read a thing from that so really can't say) but a distinct shift in the way our military history may be viewed. And it is a generally well supported and convincing argument. It barely touches on our more recent forays into the 'Dominion' but there is little doubt that the forces, if not the motivations, of American militarism and economic imperialism remain well in control. 3.5 stars rounded up.

I was waffling between 2.5 stars and 3 stars for this book. I decided on 3 stars simply because at its core, the book contains incredibly interesting information that provides a view of war in North America that usually isn’t expounded upon this extensively. The thesis is beyond important, this disproving of the US as a nation that only engages in war as a defensive measure and prefers to use consent rather coercion when moving in on foreign land, when in reality, the country rarely, if ever, operated in this manner. Instead, violence, racism, and a bloodthirsty desire for expansion motivated military and overall government effort.

However, while the book is informative and exciting at best, at worst it is exhausting and borderline punishing. When I reached the end of the first Washington chapter, I was so disappointed to find a second Washington chapter because the first had been so tiring. Maybe it’s because I’ve read so many books on Washington before and it is hard to write about him in a unique matter at this point, but the two chapters felt endless. I considered skipping to the next chapter or even not finishing the book. I’m glad I plowed ahead because the next few chapters were great, specifically Grant through the first MacArthur chapter. But by the time I reached the second MacArthur chapter, I experienced the same frustration I had had with the Washington chapters.

The book is sometimes so dense that you don’t understand why they’re including certain details and by the time you reach the end of the section, you’ve fought so hard just to get through it that you can’t figure out how to analyze it and how it was important to the overall message of the book. I’m not saying they should have walked us to the reason for the inclusion, but in certain scenarios, like Washington’s desire for land, they didn’t close the loop until quite a bit later, at which point the payoff was disappointing because you had endured all that detail for one sentence. At several points they presented one view of a historical situation, and then the opposing view, and then the first view without adding anything significant and just restating the exact same points, and then the opposing view once again with the same structure.

I’m glad I read it because I learned so much about wars that aren’t taught enough and received very important information and perspectives on often neglected parts of history, and I will be diving into the notes for further reading recommendations, but by the time I got to the final 50 pages I was so ready for the book to be over.

If you decide to read this, and I don’t at all discourage anyone with an interest in this topic from doing so, don’t be afraid to skim certain sections instead of giving it your full attention. That may sound disrespectful to the authors and I truly don’t mean it that way, but the truth is that they often seem to pack as much information in there as possible without considering what is actual important and what is less important and ends up being redundant, and it can get frustrating to read a dense section only to discover that you read pretty much the exact same thing two paragraphs above without any added value.

Superb analysis of North American political evolution. Reminiscent of Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Makes very effective use of biography (e.g., Champlain, Santa Ana, Grant, Powell) to illustrate what might otherwise be dry, abstract points on the evolution of the North Amercican empire(s).