nakindig – American Disasters

April 30, 2014December 16, 2020

The Dust Bowl: Interpreting it as Disaster

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 dust bowl is a very interesting historical event to study, with many factors that led to it happening, both natural and manmade. I think Koppes does an adequate job of comparing Worster and Bonnifield, yet he does an incomplete analysis of each source individually. He argues the Worster is more coherent, while Bonnifield’s argument needs polishing.

Like Marston, I was frustrated by not knowing about the two sources Koppes is reviewing. I think that I would have been less frustrated if he approached the two sources differently, as I do not expect everyone who reads his article to have read the two sources that he reviews. He says that Bonnefield’s argument is too incoherent without going in depth as to explain why it is incoherent. With Worster, he presents the book as having a more polished argument. He then concludes his analysis of the book by stating one of its main arguments, an implication of an alternative to capitalism. He then goes on talking about his qualms with the book, yet he does not explain how the book could have argued his points better. Instead, he points out one argument of the book that he liked. He leaves the reader putting an immense amount of trust in his assessment of both sources without really explaining too much why he feels the way that he feels about both of the sources. I feel as though he was too ambitious with the word count that he used, and he should have either narrowed what he was arguing or written more.

April 16, 2014December 16, 2020

Leavitt’s motives and Wertheimer’s Legal History Presentation

I love how Leavitt approaches her argument. She lays out her goals before the reader very clearly, and although I have not read the entire book, from what I have read, I think she does what she planned to do well.

Leavitt explains well in the last chapter how many other Typhoid carriers took the same course of action that she did in dealing with her disease. I want to caution alroberts in making sure that, although Mary’s situation and course of action made her a prime scapegoat for a major epidemic, many other people were just as culpable as she was, and many of these people comprised the lower class. It was not her class status or her situation that made her unique; it was how the public reacted to her that made her unique.

In the last chapter, Leavitt explains many different theatrical and artistic interpretations of Mary Mallon’s story, and many of these interpretations had very different sentiments toward Mary. Some made her the victim, while others made her the villain and everywhere in between. This approach executes Leavitt’s plan to present many different perspectives of the story well.

In the last line of the book before the conclusion, Leavitt says, “Danger lurks in the most unsuspecting places, and we are now a society on guard against it Is there any way out? What should we do next?” (230). When I first read this line, I thought, ‘why in the world would Leavitt relate this story to danger?’. Then, I realized that this line is a great way to sum up how we deal with natural disasters (one could argue whether or not sickness outbreak is a disaster), and I became much more satisfied with the line in a broader context.

Also, I just wanted to say that Dr. Wertheimer’s class (and CT) has done excellent, extensive research on how juries were composed in South Carolina in the Jim Crow era. If you didn’t get to go to the presentation, you should ask CT how jury selection exercised white supremacy within the south during the era, and how it is still a (not quite as prevalent) problem today.

April 7, 2014December 16, 2020

The Cultural Impact of the Titanic

Overall, I liked Biel’s approach to the responses to the disaster, although I do not know if I entirely buy his argument.

Biel uses how the Titanic was popularly studied from the 1950s to the 1980s in order to analyze how people used the disaster to parallel it to their own lives. I am not quite sure if he is saying that he agrees with the movements, or if he is just quoting those who believed that the disaster reflected their specific time period, but I feel as though people used the disaster in ways they wanted to do so; the disaster did not necessarily have to do with all nuances that he mentions. Like jewarren I think that it is interesting how he talks about certainty and uncertainty, and how he parallels that to technology and the nuclear age. I definitely agree that before the first World War, Americans had a (false) sense of safety and security, and this disaster can parallel how Americans saw technology before and after the World Wars. I think that Biel’s arguments about masculinity, femininity, and the disaster are interesting, although I do not know if I entirely agree with him. His arguments seem a bit speculative, and I think that people used the disaster to describe the role of men and women in the Cold War period. I also do not know if I agree with his argument about the story needing to “have a happy ending” (219). As he talks about Carter and how his femininity showed, he also parallels that to Reagan and how the great feeling produced from the time period had to parallel the disaster and give proper roles of masculinity and femininity to it. People are still fascinated with the Titanic even though he says that it has had an ending. He does a great progression of cultural significance and how people responded to the disaster over time, but the arguments that he makes from his analysis seem a bit speculative to me.

P.S. Research Update: I have found four primary sources and one great secondary source for studying how classes perceived and were affected by the Sea Islands Hurricane. I feel much more confident about my body of resources, and I will now be able to move forward analyzing classes from this disaster specifically without using to much speculation or other disasters as examples and applying it to this one.

March 26, 2014December 16, 2020

Interpreting Disaster

I thought that both pieces had some intriguing arguments. Steinberg helped me answer some questions that I had about the San Francisco Earthquake, while Davis raises more questions for me to figure out that mamorte highlights in his post.

Steinberg seems to answer the question that we had in class Tuesday as to why the San Franciscan businessmen did not want people to know that the city had been destroyed; the businesses wanted other places to assume that the city was fine, and that they could do business as usual with the San Franciscan businesses. Moreover, the businessmen wanted others in commerce to believe that even though the city was earthquake-prone, this would not affect its business because they circulated the idea that the fire did more damage to the city than the earthquake; any city is susceptible to fire. I also agree with Steinberg’s argument that “blurring the boundary between natural and human actions obscures the social and economic forces responsible for calamity in the first place” (118). People try to make it more difficult to pin down the causes of what actually happened in order to disperse evidence for blame. This idea also poses a threat to the reliability of primary source evidence in the study of history and disasters. When people try to make sense of a traumatic event in immediate aftermath while trying not to place blame on themselves or others like themselves, they are much more likely to skew their own interpretation of what happened.

I also liked Davis and his piece about the ecology of fear, comparing disasters in different time periods and how they’ve developed. I think it’s interesting how he claims that disasters will continue to have more catastrophic effect, even though we have had a lull in terms of calamity from disasters since the Gilded Age. I am not saying that I disagree with his main argument, but I find it intriguing.

March 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Ignorance is Definitely not Bliss

Overall, I liked Larson’s account of the Galveston Hurricane. It was an easy read, and it definitely adds to the historical study of the event by way of using first-hand accounts of the hurricane.

Looking back at what the people thought about the likelihood of a storm through the lens of seeing news about many Gulf Coast hurricanes in my lifetime, I am shocked by everybody’s lack of acknowledgment of potential danger. Price talked about how the people of Johnstown acknowledged the threat of flood, even if they did not properly prepare for the flood. In Galveston, however, the people did not even acknowledge the potential for a storm, which led to greater loss. It surprised me that they thought of the gulf as a warm lake rather than an ocean. Even though the Cubans were 100 percent accurate about the hurricane, the National Weather Service did not even take the slightest bit of stock in them, thinking that they were concerned enough about science. It also surprises me that it was illegal for Isaac to call the hurricane warning, as he was trying to save lives when he did so.

The city did learn quickly from this disaster, building a huge storm surge wall and elevating the city, but this one disaster put them forever behind in a race with Houston to become the greatest gulf city, and we see the effects of that result today. Houston continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, while Galveston is a dwindling port city. The hurricane drastically hindered the city’s course of growth, as people looked to Houston more and more to invest.

February 19, 2014December 16, 2020

A Feeling of Fresh Perspective

As I was reading the first three chapters of The Johnstown Flood, I felt like I was reading literature, not history. I knew McCullough had the ability to do this, though, as I have read his other works before. I also know almost nothing about the Johnstown flood, so I feel like I can read it from a fresh perspective, getting lost in the story.

With that said, I do not think that McCullough properly places blame while assessing the flood. After reading about many different disasters, their causes, and effects in class, I feel like blame cannot be solely placed on one person or one group of people. A mix of unexpectedness and unpreparedness definitely contributes to disasters, but I do not feel as though a sole party is at fault, especially in the case of the Johnstown flood. McCullough argues that the elites were responsible for the flood, but another historian could argue that the lack of proper building codes that have yet to be put in place by the government. If I were looking at the disaster as a stand alone, I might, like jewarren, place blame on a sole party, but because I have studied multiple different disasters up to this point in the course, I’m much more wary of quickly trying to find a specific cause of the catastrophe. I think McCullough is a great historian and writer, but I am not even sure if I agree with what is on the back cover, which hints at placing blame on the elites, but I guess that making a bold claim makes for more interesting writing, whether or not you agree with it.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

The Importance of Primary Sources in Disasters

I loved reading the primary source of Father Peter Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo Fire. Not only does he give a detailed account of the catastrophe, but he also writes with literary fluidity, which allows the reader to become even more engrossed in what occurred in Peshtigo. I agree with caschmidt in that reading a primary source of a disaster was very refreshing, and it is definitely necessary for better understanding natural disasters when primary sources are available.

Not only do primary sources give us a perceptive account of historical events, but they also give us an eye into what the people were like of the time and how that affected their outlook on the events. Knowing that Pernin is a priest, he was an important figure of the town as demonstrated by the many people who knew him during the events. This gives us a totally different perspective than one of the laborers in the town that were only there for a short while in order to build the railroad. I also like how Pernin pointed out that we learn from danger. That is the premise of this course and how to better understand natural disasters so that we can learn the most possible from them. Throughout the beginning of his account, he writes about the ill-prepared not making it through the disaster; this goes back to our discussion about preparedness and how that can affect the impact of the disaster on society. Preparedness, or lack thereof, is of utmost importance to preventing disasters, and this account shows that Peshtigo was not ready, and the people did not want to deal with disaster even when it was bearing down on their backs.

January 29, 2014December 16, 2020

The Ideological Frontier and a stAndsTiLl

Overall, I liked Cronon’s assessment of “The Frontier Thesis”. He points to Turner using rhetorical moves of the frontier as an idea, not a place, and he defends his points well for the most part. It’s possible, however, that he does make some assumptions that I would not have been as quick to make, but he obviously does them with good reason, and his overall argument still stands. I disagree with jewarren in that I believe we should continue analyzing Turner’s work. Cronon is trying to prove why it’s still important to embark on new theories about an environmental historian’s arguments, and if we stopped analyzing it, then his work would be rendered dead in academia.

With that said, I really want to talk about a possible new natural disaster that just occurred yesterday (northerners go ahead and laugh). In Atlanta and Birmingham, many people, young and old, were stranded on the roads last night in a complete stAndsTiLl on the roads. The interstates in Atlanta were gridlocked; for hours, no one moved an inch on the roads unless they abandoned their cars and walked. I scrolled through Facebook, and I saw people talk about their 4, 8, 9, 16, and even 20 hour commute to get back home. For the first time in Atlanta’s history, traffic going away from the city during the morning rush “hour” was gridlocked, while the city-bound side of the interstate across the median was completely empty; people were sitting in the shadows of the skyscrapers 16-24 hours after they left to go home. In texting my friends and family back home, I often heard, ‘I’m okay, but it’s CRAZY down here’. There have been over 1,000 car crashes in the past 28 hours (and counting). School kids were stranded with their bus drivers on hills. Thousands of people abandoned their cars on the interstates and highways to walk home. The city is in a state of emergency right now.

Just yesterday, we were talking in class about how to define disaster, and one major axis of conversation revolved around the inexplicability and who to place blame onto. If you go to ajc.com (The website for the Atlanta Journal Constitution), you’ll see multiple articles about the ‘blame game’. I don’t want to get into the blame game, but I’ll try to help you understand how it happened. Schools decided not to close, so all of the schools in the metro area got out at 3; businesses decided to close early… at 3. Whoever was not home at 3:00 yesterday decided to leave then. Just 3 years ago, it snowed a foot in Atlanta and people were fine, but yesterday, it snowed two inches. The reason for the disparity in the level of disastrous effect was that most of 6 million people in the city decided to drive at the same time. We Atlantans saw something somewhat similar effects in the Olympics and the NBA All-Star game in 2003, but never to this scale. Atlanta drivers have done very well in spacing out “rush-hour”, so that we’re not all on the road at the same time. That just means that for 8 hours of the day, traffic is pretty bad, but bearable (at least for an Atlantan). When we’re all on the road at the same time, the transportation system just can’t take it, and millions of dollars are lost while people sit on the same spot of the road for 4 hours. When Atlantans can space out there driving, all is relatively well, but when they can’t, chaos erupts.

January 24, 2014December 16, 2020

The Power of Art and Disaster

I loved going to the State of Emergency exhibit even though I am not that much of an art person. As I was walking through the exhibit, I loved seeing the power of art and how it can portray disaster in an appropriate manner. Piece by piece, I respected more and more the feelings of the people within the disasters…

Then, boom. I saw the piece about the Atlanta flood of 2009. All of these memories came flooding (no pun intended) back into my mind. Molly shouldn’t feel guilty about not remembering. Some areas of Atlanta were more affected than others.

It had rained non-stop for a week. The saturday before the flooding became disastrous (September 19th), I ran in the Gwinnett County XC meet. The meet is hosted on these soccer fields on the banks of the Chattahoochee (official called River Green Park). About 1/3 of the course was under water, people ran the slowest times we had ever run, and we have a picture of us laying down in a creek that was made by the rain. At the 2-mile mark, the water on the field was about 2 feet deep, and a bunch of runners lost their spikes (running shoes) in the mud underneath the water. Runners in the JV races were mud-surfing on the course. Everyone’s team color was brown by the end of the meet.

Sunday night into Monday morning (September 20th-21st), the flooding took a turn for the worse. The Chattahoochee and all of its run-offs couldn’t take any more water. My mom works at my school, so she wanted to leave extra-early to make sure that we could get to school on time (8:00). We live about 15 minutes away from school. We left at 6:30 so that my mom could get there by 7:15; we got to school at 8:45, and my mom was one of the first staff members there. On the way, we made so many “illegal” U-turns because rivers were running across roads (Part of every interstate in metro-Atlanta was under water, including the 14/16 lane downtown connector). At one of these river-road crossings, we saw a car up against the trees where the current met the woods on the side of the road. Most cars that tried to cross the water made it. This car wasn’t so lucky. I don’t know if that person made it or not (I’m pretty sure he or she did. The only memory burned into my brain is the car), but the majority of fatalities were due to failed flood crossings in cars (needless to say, I don’t like talking about this specific memory). They cancelled school at 9:30 that morning, which was after a lot of students had already arrived. We didn’t have school for the next two days because too many roads were closed to make it to any destination.

Throughout the day, a creek started running through our back yard (from the back of it to our house and around the sides of our house). On one side of our house, the debris from our back yard clogged up the water to the fence, so we had a sort of pond on the back corner of our house. My dad was working out of town, so my older brother had to walk into the pond and unclog the area next to the fence. The water was inches away from getting into our back door. Most of my friends had flood damage in their house. We definitely lucked out. After the flood, my dad landscaped a creek bed to run the water safely to the front of our fence and through our front yard out to the road to prevent that from happening again. My family did nothing but sit at home and watch local news and the water flow through our yard onto our mostly-flooded street for three days.

I recounted the story mostly because that’s how I felt I should properly address it. Art can definitely help people understand disasters in a way that essays can’t, and vice versa. There’s no way for me to describe a natural disaster that I experienced other than to tell you what I saw, not what news stations or historians told me.