January 2014 – Page 6 – American Disasters

January 18, 2014December 16, 2020

Approaching the Gilded Age: Argumentative vs. Informative

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The authors of “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age” and the “Introduction” from The Gilded Age and Progressive Era: A Student Companion approach discussing the Gilded Age in two distinct ways. Calhoun provides readers with an outline for an argument calling for a reevaluation of the stereotypes associated with the Gilded Age, while the author(s) of the “Introduction” briefly summarizes key events and issues of the period, presumably in order to contextualize arguments he will make later in the book. Because the authors have different reasons for writing, they present different types of central questions. I find the picture a reader gets when studying these two texts together interesting.

Calhoun implicitly poses several questions about the stereotypes surrounding the Gilded Age: what are the stereotypes, why do they exist, to what extent are they accurate, and why should the nuances matter? These are all historiographical questions, although in order to understand the answers to them, Calhoun provides readers with some information about the period itself. In this sense, information about the Gilded Age is provided as a vehicle for furthering an argument, and not for the sake of defining the term. For example, in Calhoun’s account of the creation of the term “Gilded Age,” he explains that the authors of the book by the same name caricaturized the corruption of the age, and we should therefore distinguish the Gilded Age from its negative connotation. Here Calhoun draws a line between how authors of the time saw their contemporaries, and how we as historians should see them. What frustrates me about this reading is Calhoun’s failure to explain why the nuances surrounding the stereotypes of the Gilded Age matter. He argues that historians and students lose something if we understand the Gilded Age as gilded, but does not do more than generalize about why that is.

The author of the “Introduction” presents a number of pervading issues of the Gilded Age: what is the government’s role in regulating the economy, how do expansion and imperialism affect international relations, how can we maintain democracy in unstable times, etc. Although he does proffer a few historiographical questions like “how can we define a period of time?” he does so only to provide his own answer to the question and not to explore the topic in any detail. However, I enjoyed reading this text because the pervading questions of the age reveal an advanced public consciousness that refutes my notions about the corruption of the period, and as a result answers Calhoun’s question about why the Gilded Age should be studied without any preconceived notions.

I enjoyed Nate’s post about interdisciplinary studies, and agree that it is impossible to study any event without considering it from several points of view. I would add that it is also impossible to read a text without regard to others we read, as putting texts in conversation can provide us with answers to questions we would not even have if we read each text in a vacuum.

January 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Gilded Age Myths Versus Realities: A Matter of Perspective

In “Moving Beyond Stereotype of the Gilded Age,” Charles W. Calhoun takes issue with the lack of acknowledgement that the Gilded Age receives in the classroom, where he believes it is written off as a time of corruption and speculation, among other atrocities. Rather, he makes the case, it was a time of intense urbanization, industrialization, cultural broadening, and increases in regulation.

The “Introduction” to The Gilded Age and Progressive Era : A Student Companion offers a more conventional interpretation of the Gilded Age, though the factual differences between this and Calhoun’s interpretations are minimal.

Calhoun is not incorrect: the Gilded Age was not a cultural wasteland (though I admit, Twain is the only name I recognize from the list Calhoun unspools, not that I am particularly cultured), nor was it a time in which no attempts were made to address contemporary problems. The ICC and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are good examples, though the latter was weak enough that it was strengthened in 1914.

The Gilded Age is not overlooked because nothing occurred, but rather because many teachers likely believe that there is more to learn from other periods. Indeed, the rampant capitalism of the Gilded Age seems most relevant in counterpoint to the regulatory expansion of the Progressive Era, since the level of government involvement currently exercised across American life more resembles the reformed than the laissez-faire. On the other side of the Gilded Age, Calhoun can hardly disagree that the Civil War was likely more significant than the Gilded Age.

Likewise, Calhoun takes issue with the ways in which the Gilded Age is perceived. I doubt historians and teachers would disagree with his characterization of the Age, and yet the views of the past are always shaped by the present. The Gilded Age surfaces in our collective memory because of the ways in which it was different from the present and recent past, not the ways in which it was similar. Modern American consumers may have gained tremendously in buying power during the Gilded Age, but they benefitted more during the 1950s; there was no dearth of exceptional artists during the Gilded Age, but since we have had Hemingway, Steinbeck, the Beats, the Harlem Renaissance, Elvis, and cinema, to name a few; Republicans and Democrats may have had substantial political differences during the Gilded Age, but so do they today, and frequently we do not see those difference play out in terms of policy. On the contrary, we do not have the monopolies, the child labor, as much urban squalor (though still significant amounts), and as brutal a form of capitalism as the Gilded Age held. Therefore, those are the elements for which the Gilded Age is remembered, though that suggests more about 2014 than 1884.

With regard to Thursday’s readings, I strongly agree with Price’s assertion that Bergman “jumps the gun” on calling disasters useful. They certainly reveal the problems in society, and allow for compelling debate on the issues of the day. Yet, nothing useful comes with so high a cost that, given the choice, one would never use it. To call it useful is to approach a disaster in a completely academic way, without humanity. And, maybe that is a useful exercise. All the better that we study the disasters of the Gilded Age, for I could explain a Katrina victim the ways in which his or her suffering was ‘useful.’

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

Disaster in History: Social Injustice

History is something that is vital to human evolution however is not concrete. Disasters in history have created must contention between various views. Main topics of debate are how to study the history of American disasters. When defining “disaster” one must consider the platform in which they are arguing. Is a disaster created supernaturally? Or is it caused by man? Maybe both?

Jonathan Bergman points out how “disaster offers a unique lens with which to examine history” (935). Early beliefs of disaster may see it as a force beyond the power of man or nature but created through a higher being (God). As that is an early thought to the approach of how to define disaster one can see how the models have evolved to incorporate other factors. Worster formed a strong opinion that disasters are “work of man not nature” (937). His example was the Dust Bowl that occurred during the same time period as the Great Depression (1930s). The Dust Bowl can be argued that the land was overused and thus drying out the nutrients in the soil. However, there were also a multitude of natural events that multiplied the effects of man.

While those are only surface examples of how a disaster can be defined, the argument that I found the most accurate is his approach to studying disasters in American history. How Bergman points out how a disaster is caused and the effects that the disaster has both socially and economically in society. Bergman cites Karen Sawislak’s novel and ideas about the Great Fire in Chicago of 1871. In her argument she finds how “‘social difference’ shaped the ‘destinies’ of those affected by the fire” (938). This was shown in the efforts of rebuilding and how social disorder ensued. This aspect of social hierarchy is also shown in Kenneth Hewitt’s article when he addresses the Titanic. After the disaster of the Titanic, while there were more poor people on the ship more of the wealthy were able to survive due to their status they were able to get preferential life boats which ultimately saved their lives. How society reacts after a disaster ensues, whether it is a plague, a hurricane or a human error, is a way to analyze the faults in the system. The argument that I found to be the most convincing was Stephen Biel’s explanation of a disaster. According to Biel the meaning of disaster “can be found not only in cultural and political ideology, but in the evolution of relief regimes, engineering principles, and the news media” (939). This point felt the most persuasive because looking at the response or preparation of a disaster can help to advance society. I agree with the notion that disasters can be both “destructive and constructive” by regulating society naturally and manually.

Each “disaster” must be viewed an analyze on a case by case basis. There is no true way of distinguishing an exact formula of what a disaster is or how it can be prevented.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

The Discipline of Disaster Studies

Jonathan Bergman’s article “Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” traces the development of the study of disaster. His approach to the discipline is broader than our class’s focus on natural disasters, encompassing “supernatural occurrences” (934). This difference in understanding of the parameters of a disaster touches on the difficultly in defining a disaster, which we experienced firsthand in class. Bergman touches on this on page 935 of this article.

Bergman points out the multidisciplinary nature of disaster studies, presenting scholars who have approached it through historical, sociological and ecological approaches, among others. This multidisciplinary nature adds to the difficulty in creating a universal definition of disaster, by bringing in many different scholars who have differing opinions, adding to the controversy. However, disaccord surrounding definitions is a not unique to the study of disasters, it is also present in other fields, such as genocide studies. He briefly examines many secondary works, drawing on a broad spectrum of disasters and the literature surrounding them, to illustrate his points.

Bergman mentioned several articles that illustrate how disasters highlight and aggravate the fissures in society, which substantiates the point that was made in class yesterday. One example that Bergman cited was the socioeconomic and racial components of the decision to open levies in the aftermath of Katrina to save the property and assists of the more wealthy neighborhoods. However, he does mention that a buffer of a certain period of time is needed between the event being studied and the scholar who is studying it, which is an idea that is pertinent point to the study of history as a discipline.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

Tragedy vs. Disaster

When I signed up for this class, I assumed disaster’s were limited to natural occurrences. Even while we were listing off disasters in class, I didn’t believe that terrorism, car accidents, or other man-made disasters would satisfy the disaster definition. I’ve always associated disasters with natural phenomenons and tragedies with man-made screw ups. Part of this association comes from the loss of life and capital that we were discussing in class. Human error rarely causes as much devastation as natural disasters. One of my favorite childhood memories stems from the show “Wrath of God” put on by the Weather Channel. The show recounted various storms of epic proportions. I’d watch it with my mom at nights (past my eight-thirty bedtime, so it was that much better), and we both were in awe of the sheer power some storms could produce. It was awesome. Point is, that show defined disaster for me. Sure, I thought the death of Princess Diana was a terrible thing, but I considered that a tragedy. 9/11 was a tragedy. School shootings are a tragedy. These are all tragedies because it’s tragic that human malcontent or error caused harm to other humans. Although Google’s dictionary (and there’s no arguing with Google), essentially defines the words tragedy and disaster as interchangeable, the specific connotations for me are a little different.

However, reading Bergman’s article, I found Matthew Mulcahy’s definition better than Google’s. He states, “disasters become disasters only when natural forces meet human ones.” (936) Bergman continues this way of thinking by claiming that disasters reveal weaknesses in social and environmental systems. He couldn’t be more right. Think about it. Why was Katrina so devastating? Because we built a city below sea level and our human levies broke, which allowed further flooding. Would Katrina be as devastating if the same storm hit a different area? Or better yet, would the storm even be a disaster if our buildings were all concrete and elevated off the ground (or made out of this arch’s material)? Granted it’d be a hideous city with strictly concrete buildings, but the point is that the storm was made a disaster because of the human aspects combining with the power of nature. As Bergman claims on page 940, disaster is now an “artifact of culture.” For example, fires were more devastating before Benjamin Franklin created Fire Departments (where’s Benny Hartshorn for this one?!), but our culture adapted to control this disaster causing event. Fires are still an issue, especially out west, but we’re much better prepared to handle these wildfires. So the damage and cost of life wildfires cause is greatly reduced now than 300 years ago.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

The Importance of Scale in Disaster Appraisal

While discussing the varying criteria with which historians have understood ‘disaster’ Bergman points out that historians “have not advocated a common creed” but rather share a “familiar lexicon” (935). In my opinion this comment, which serves as a keystone to his article, highlights the large role that the scope of a disasters appraisal can play in creating varying historical understandings of the term while still maintaining a “familiar lexicon.” Throughout our class discussion we referenced different ways with which to evaluate disasters. Be it the “common measuring stick” that Bergman labels a calculus of property and lives, or a more nuanced method that evaluates a disaster’s psychological toll, these understandings are dependent on the group that is analyzed. An example of this can be seen in whether or not one considers the displacement and subsequent harm to Native Americans a disaster; it is dependent on whether analysis is limited to the American economy and subsequently American citizens or includes all parties involved. This is also present in both Bergman and Hewitt’s articles. Bergman references many scholars who contend that disasters are, by nature, social. This analysis is dependent on limiting a disasters evaluation to its toll on humans rather and discounting the ways in which they affect other species, so long as that doesn’t have a toll on humans (were there no disasters prior to humankind?). Hewitt draws attention to this issue of appraisal in by discussing the ways in which countries might export a dangerous technology, product or waste product despite it being illegal in their own country. This exportation of products that are outlawed so as to prevent disaster, demonstrates a disaster appraisal that, by being limited to a certain group of people, is counterproductive on a larger scale. It additionally highlights the ways in which disaster appraisal and response can create collective action problems and the dangers of inward and narrowly focused evaluations and prescriptions for disasters that Hewitt goes on to discuss in his conclusion.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

The Media, Cultural Evolution, and Modern Amplification

Simply put, there is no unique or correct way for anyone to classify and approach the general term of disasters. As stated in both the class discussion and throughout the readings, disasters can be technological, natural, man-made, or some intricate hybrid. Disasters are such a unique aspect of our culture because their uncertainty allows for interpretation and debate. As Bergman mentions, there is no one disciple that disaster study is limited to. Based on this initial first day of reading, it has become clear how this simple term has so much more complexity than I originally thought. Throughout the readings, both Hewitt and Bergman demonstrate that in history each disaster is unique and requires specific analysis. As people try to generalize all disasters as a singular term, the more question emerge. While both Hewitt and Bergman have different thesis, they are both right because their analysis is a historical overview rather than a specific theory. Hewitt’s argument about uniqueness and an understanding through cultural immersion based on context is very much valid. We cannot compare disasters from different time periods, different locations, or different cultures because every disaster has a unique impact on time and space. This theory blends well with Bergman’s idea that there can be no evolution into a disaster classification. Disasters are unexplainable in a modern sense and our understanding can only be completed through analysis and historical research. Essentially these theories blend together, in my mind, in that every “disaster” is unique and can only be fully understood when the full ramifications are felt and analyzed.

This combined interpretation of the readings troubled me as I recollected a section early on in Hewitt’s introduction. Hewitt mentions the media and radical rise disaster classifications between 1989 and 1993. By his research the media identified about 110 technological disasters and 50 natural disasters. (page 7) What troubles me was not that the have been a vast spike in disasters but the idea that the media now has such an impact on modern history. Today, our society has accepted the media’s focus on “disasters” and developed strong interests in conflict and despair. However, does the media too easily magnify any event into a disaster and as a society do we accept it? Certainly there is strong evidence correlating modern technology and the destruction of environment, but does the modernization of our society create every disaster or are we too easily classifying anything unexpected under this broad term of disaster? Having done no prior primary source research about Gilded Age disasters, this semester will provide a unique opportunity to compare the modern media against early newspapers and publications. I am looking forward to seeing if the United States has always magnified every event or if this trend of inflated dramatization is truly a modern response for societies’ new interest.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

The Multifaceted Impact of Disasters

Hewitt describes the study of disasters and their impact as truly interdisciplinary. He takes the geographical point of view because he is a geographer, and he looks at disasters in a very scientific manner. Bergman, on the other hand, looks at disasters in a social aspect. Disasters have profound scientific and social implications, so looking at the subject from either style of study is completely valid. Bergman says the the disciplines that focus on natural disasters include “geography, anthropology, ecology, meteorology, psychology, sociology, and, more recently, history” (Bergman, Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis, 935). This claim properly explains the interdisciplinary nature of the study of disasters. The impact of disasters go beyond one or even two related fields.

Because people examine disasters from these many different fields of study, the definition of a disaster is hard to realize. I think it is easier to look at disasters at a case by case basis because not every disaster encompasses all of the aforementioned disciplines. Taking one disaster and using the disciplines it encompasses is easier than trying to define disaster in order to satisfy all of them. A meteorologist can learn more about the impacts of a hurricane as a disaster when s/he sees the ecological impact; a historian can learn more about the impacts of the same disaster when s/he sees the sociological impact. It’s practically impossible to know all of the causes and effects of disasters, but we can gain more understanding about each one by looking at it from many different points of view.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

Disaster as a Social Construction

Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis by Jonathan Bergman and Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disaster’s introductory chapter by Kenneth Hewitt explore the questions of what is a disaster and what is it to study disasters. Hewitt makes an explicit argument that the disaster narrative is a social construction, while Bergman more generally explores disaster studies and provides claims that can be used to support Hewitt’s argument. Hewitt uses previous disasters such as the Johnstown Flood, the Dust Bowl, and the cholera epidemics of the 19th century as evidence for his claims, but more importantly within those disasters he focuses not on the capital and lives lost but rather the portrayal and memory of the disasters. Bergman takes a different approach and while he does talk about the societal reaction to various disasters, he analyzes the disasters by using more data driven metrics and focuses on the societal perception of risk.

Hewitt’s argument that disasters are a social construction is very strong because much of how we process and perceive disasters is through institutions such as media and government and through other social constructions like class, race and religion. Hewitt’s claim that “disasters therefore should be rightly understood as triggering mechanisms revealing flaws in environmental and social systems” is a uniquely interesting point because many things like building codes and emergency exits would not exist if a disaster had not come around to expose the flaw in the system. (Hewitt 936) I also really liked Bergman’s division of societal maladies into routine and non-routine events and that when threats “overwhelm whole communities” rather than just affect one person or a small group they are then perceived as a disaster. (Bergman 5) Overall both Hewitt and Bergman analyze disaster studies in interesting ways but Hewitt makes a more succinct and compelling argument that disasters are a social construction.

January 15, 2014December 16, 2020

Disaster and the Cost of Innovation

http://act.pih.org/page/-/img/resize-615px-Haiti_1212_MirebalaisAerials_rollins_064.jpg

Mirebalais, located 30 miles north of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, is home to the largest solar powered hospital in the world. The hospital opened in 2013 and runs 100% off of 1,800 solar panels and what’s more, is even able to sell energy back to the grid. This development is huge – especially as frequent and massive power outages continue to plague the struggling nation. Resultantly, solar panels, aside from being more energy-efficient, remove the hospital from the threat of potentially deadly power outages.

Hewitt struggles balancing the tension between the innovation and horrific consequences from disaster. Hewitt argues that there is every reason to believe that many disasters could have prevented or at least reduced. “This is what gives to hazard and disaster studies a positive orientation. To help extend and improve safety and relief of suffering is surely the only acceptable purpose of research into extreme harm.” Hewitt urges us to study disaster in order that we may prevent it.

Bergman touches on the dichotomies of disasters as well. He presents different case studies on how Hurricane Katrina exposed the failure of American social justice and how the Mississippi flood shed light on issues of race. Bergman writes, “Disaster, Rozario seems to suggest, was both destructive and constructive – its own most powerful tonic.” Disasters, Bergman continues, should be understood as triggering mechanisms that reveal imperfections in both environmental and social systems. And we are left to decide how to pick up the pieces.

Bill Clinton’s mantra in Haiti has been “build back better.” The Mirebalis hospital is a model of innovation that emerged from the deadly ashes of the horrific Haitian earthquake. We celebrate its development but morn its roots. So progress can emerge from disaster – but when it comes at the cost of spilled blood, we are caught in a balancing act, reconciling the price we have paid for innovation.