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
Focus Question: What are different historical approaches to studying the history of American disasters?
Disaster is, as Bergman puts it, “ubiquitous yet indescribable.” It is difficult to exactly characterize disaster, as we saw in our class list on Tuesday. Everything from hurricanes to terrorism was lumped under disaster. The definition and study of “disaster” has evolved. Early on, supernatural events were thought to bring about disasters. Disasters were not natural; they represented God’s displeasure with humans. Then the language around disasters shifted to science. Disaster descriptions were couched in purely secular terms.
Even more recently, there has been focus on “human ecology” or the link between human and non-human worlds. Several scholars, such as Matthew Mulchay, think this intersection of natural and human forces precipitates disasters. Some even call modern disasters “unnatural.” It seems a bit extreme, however, to call every disaster unnatural. For instance, humans do not cause most hurricanes. Despite more recent emphasis on humans affecting weather patterns, there still appear to be some events humans did not cause. It reminds me of the old saying, “If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?” If humans were entirely uninvolved, there could still be hurricanes. They might not directly cause humans trouble, but perhaps hurricanes could be considered disastrous for the nature and wildlife they impact.
Disasters seem to reveal failings in society. David McCullough writes about the Johnstown Flood as the clash of social problems and nature, which seems more reasonable than the “unnatural” category. A combination of human and natural events caused the Johnstown flood. If there had been no improperly built dam, the heavy rain would not have had such a disastrous effect. If there had been no heavy rain, the dam might not have failed. Other scholars maintain nature or man alone causes some disasters. There has been a general movement to increasingly describing disaster in cultural or social frameworks. The piece by Kenneth Hewitt continues this cultural trend. He emphasizes the geography of disasters, which often highlights the rift between the impoverished and wealthy. Disasters in poverty-stricken areas typically produce higher death rates and reveal the limited political voice of people. Disasters form a window to study race, class, gender, politics, and governmental structure.