Uncategorized – Page 20 – American Disasters

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

The Merit of Specificity

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

Blog Post #1 (for Thursday, 1/23)

In his article “Bringing the City Back In”, James Connolly expresses dissatisfaction with “new urban history”, an approach to studying urban environments that emphasizes social science. Connolly explains that the “new urban history” method is too general, and seeks an “all encompassing synthesis [that is both] an unlikely and undesirable prospect” (264). He advocates bringing “the city back in” by addressing specific cultural, political, social and economic identities of different physical areas (264).

Charles Calhoun would likely agree with this approach. “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age” debunks a traditionally bland conception of the period by emphasizing its significance: “the United States experienced a profound transformation during these years, with lasting implications for the century that followed” (3). Furthermore, it scolds educators for neglecting the period in favor of the “seemingly more momentous” (3). Calhoun suggests that keywords like “industrialization” and “urbanization” are not a sufficient characterization of the Gilded Age.

One of the central questions of histories of the Gilded Age is this issue of method. Is the generalized overview more illuminating than the examination of a specific instance, or vice versa? The former identifies trends and transformations on the national scale, while the latter captures the “place”—the cultural, political, social and economic identity—of a single “space”. In her post for this week, Emily Taylor writes that we study history “to better understand the present vis-à-vis the past”. But for the average student of history, there is little wisdom to be gained from the study of broad, general trends. Emily’s philosophy promotes the kind of historiography that James Connolly advocates.

Referring back to last week’s reading, Kenneth Hewitt’s writing in Regions of Risk exemplifies a poorly balanced historiography that depends on generalities. For example, Hewitt explains that progress is a double-edged sword—often responsible for causing disasters and often relied on for preventing them. He also explains that there are two types of risk: routine risk, which are widespread and recognized, and extreme events, which constitute a disaster. He mentions the Titanic and the earthquake in Kobe only for their dramatic effect.

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

“Accidents” of the “Gilded Age”

In the beginning of the Edwards’ reading I found the description of the Gilded Age to be similar with my sentiments about the current era in America. To live in the United States of America right now is to experience an active, emotional, and dynamic time period. As a country we are divided over the issue of war, the organic food movement has made known the shortcuts and shortfalls of factory farming in a Sinclair-like manner, and multiple friends and students have found jobs and apartments in the rapidly expanding Charlotte. However, as I became more aware of the ugly reconstruction in the South after the Civil War and the national connectivity from the development of railroads I realize that now is quite distinct from then. Through the essays and arguments of Edwards and Calhoun, I have also learned that there is more to the “Gilded Age” than robber barons, greed and self-indulgence. Sarah’s blog post points out “there is probably no age that can be neatly classified negative or positive” and “historians will often have to revise their perspectives” both of which are accurate and sharp statements.

Defining and renaming the “Gilded Age” or “Early Progressive Era” sets the context for analyzing the disasters that occurred during this time. In some regards, I agree with Wells: I believe historians should study these disasters as important social events that changed the progressive course of the country, but additionally historians should recognize that the causes of disaster were directly related to poor infrastructure, or weak working codes. Understanding that many of the disasters during this era were preventable, I find I am unable to use the word “accident” to describe disasters that occurred during the “Gilded Age”/ “Early Progressive Era” and instead choose the words “intentional” or “unintentional”. Edwards provides the example of a group of female convicts in Georgia who set fire to the brickyard where they were ordered to work hard labor in protest of “sexual exploitation and abysmal living conditions” (Edwards, 2). The fire in Georgia started because someone had the hope of setting the institution ablaze and therefore the “disaster” was not accidental. This differs from the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which was an unintentional disaster, but still not an “accident”. If the escape doors were unlocked, the fire on the ninth floor might not have killed over one-fifth of the workers.

Questions I would like to ask the class are: How are methods historians use to define the “Gilded Age” similar to methods we use to define disasters? How do these definitions set the stage for disasters we will analyze?

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

The Gilded Age: Too long Overlooked

In her book, New Spirits: Americans in the Gilded Age 1865-1905, Rebecca Edwards tackles the ongoing controversial question of whether or not the Gilded Age is a clearly separate period in history from the Progressive era, as is generally asserted. Edwards suggests that the Gilded Age would in fact be more aptly titled the Early Progressive Era, as this period was in her belief more similar to the Progressive era than it was different (Edwards 5). Calhoun appears to agree with Edwards’s belief that the Gilded Age was a much more important era of American History than is generally described. He suggests that Gilded Age was, in fact, “one of substantial accomplishment” (Calhoun 3).

As Emily suggests, it is important not to characterize any period in history as irrelevant, as everything that occurred in the past played a role in shaping the present. Edwards clearly outlined the importance of the political, social, and economic changes that occurred and developed during the Gilded Age as well as the ways Gilded Age disasters prompted such changes. Calhoun also emphasizes this period’s successes, namely in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission (Calhoun 4). Edwards adds to the list of the Gilded Age’s accomplishments by naming the creation of the transcontinental railroad as well as pointing out the activist policies the federal government took in order to encourage economic growth and social order.

It is important to note as Sarah did, that Calhoun did not attempt to ignore the obvious shortcomings of policy decisions and disasters that occurred during the Gilded Age. Edwards too openly discussed the governmental and societal failings during the Gilded Age. However, both authors argue that despite these notable shortcomings, the Gilded Age was in fact a period of progress, responsible for transitioning America into modernity. Emily’s post illustrates the importance of keeping in mind through all study of history, that each piece of history is responsible for creating the present. It is essential to realize that no piece of history can be ignored or overlooked. Every era is a dichotomy of failings and successes, and as Calhoun points out, the Gilded Age is no exception.

Calhoun and Edwards both emphasize that the Gilded Age has long been simplified and glossed over. Emily’s post really drove home the point that history is entirely connected to our present, and thus cannot be ignored. Regardless of the Gilded Age’s shortcomings, it is important to never gloss over an area of history, as each era is intrinsically connected to history in its entirety.

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

A Crucible of Fire: Interpreting the “Gilded Age” and Characterizing Its Disasters

Just as last week’s readings approached disasters, our readings for Tuesday’s class examine the “Gilded Age” and approach it generally, attempting to characterize the period and, in doing so, look beyond its materialism and superficiality. As Sarah addressed in her post, Charles Calhoun adopts this approach in his analysis of the period and suggests that in the context of US history it was a time of “substantial accomplishment,” when advancements in politics and pop culture coincided with urbanization and economic development (3). Indeed, as Sarah writes, the period was “not as gilded as it seems.” But perhaps even more boldly than Calhoun, Rebecca Edwards advocates for the period’s significance and, one might say, preeminence in New Spirits. The “Gilded Age,” she insists, was not merely a time of greed, inequality, and other ills of so-called unfettered capitalism, but an “Early Progressive Era,” the “starting point for modern America” (5). She notes, like Calhoun, that alongside the emergence of globalism and development of capitalism, the United States underwent a period of immense change, evolving into a more egalitarian democracy and fostering a democratic culture. But for Edwards, the period was not just one of progress. As she writes, the United States emerged from a “crucible of fire” in early twentieth century, fraught as much with greed and corruption as with disaster (1).

So, how might these affirmative views of the “Gilded Age” influence our interpretation of its disasters?

As our reading last week noted, disasters serve as “daily reminders of the limitations . . . of modernity” (Hewitt 2). Just as they exploit weaknesses in infrastructure and society, they can and often do illicit positive change to mend those weaknesses. And it would seem that this is especially the case in an evolving society, where progress might not begin with disaster—it’s already begun—but instead simply alters its course. Now, if Edwards’ and Calhoun’s assessments of the “Gilded Age” are accurate and the period truly was one of immense progress, I think we ought to evaluate the period’s disasters with its progressive ends in mind, analyzing the way in which disasters challenged the progressive course of the United States. The pitfall of this type of interpretation, of course, would be stooping to a teleological history, in which we interpret disasters as merely the causes of events, not as important events in and of themselves. But I would like to pose the question to the class: Should we interpret disasters in the “Gilded Age” as causes of the Progressive Era or as the results of a progressing era?

In his post last week, Price addressed and critiqued what Bergman described as the “utility” of disaster, suggesting that Bergman perhaps “jumps the gun” in considering disasters useful. And while I agree with him to some extent—it’s critical to recognize the deadly tolls of disaster—I think that we ought to study disasters with intention of uncovering their useful results. Not only does this approach attempt to understand disasters in their context, but recognizes both the momentary and long-lasting effects of those disasters. I think Edwards would agree with this approach as well. After all, she admits that even in this “Early Progressive Era,” it was the “fires” of the age that forged the tools of progress.

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

Why Study the Gilded Age?

Calhoun argues that the Gilded Age is under-studied and misunderstood, a conclusion that my education has supported. Although I am but one student out of so many that learn about American history in our nation, I believed that I received a high caliber education. However, my AP US History teacher, like so many that Calhoun criticizes, stereotyped the Gilded Age as a period of “superficiality, pretense, and fraud.” We breezed through the period, moving on quickly to more ‘interesting’ topics such as the Progressive Era and World War One.

But why does this misunderstanding matter, a question that both Molly and Sarah have dealt with. For me, this question goes back to the question of why we are students of history: to better understand the present vis-à-vis the past. My AP US History teacher not only presented a flawed view of the Gilded Age, as seen by Calhoun, but also failed to make the connections that bring relevance to the topic. New Spirits makes this astonishingly clear, tracing the roots of our modern society back to this tumultuous period. The Gilded Age brought about changes that form the foundation of our society today, including the new morals and ways of life that guide our decisions. However, I see more than that, I see also the beginnings of debates that are key today, such as our national dependence on fossil fuel, the trials of commuters to the cities that are so often depicted in our mass media, and the role of that our government should play in private lives. These and many more key issues and aspects of our society today were either heavily impacted by the Gilded Age or find their origins in that period.

Dr. Shrout’s posting on the climate disasters of 2013 are particularly enlightening in view of the connections made in chapter two of New Spirits, of how the natural world influenced America’s development. This is examined on page 45 of Edwards’ work, going into depth on how weather patterns influenced the development of the Great Plains.

January 19, 2014December 16, 2020

It’s Not as Gilded as it Seems: Calhoun Revises the Gilded Age

Charles W. Calhoun, in Moving Beyond the Stereotypes of the Gilded Age, introduces a multi-faceted view of the Gilded Age. Calhoun thinks the Gilded Age gets largely swept aside in teaching; the period is just stuck between seemingly more important events in America’s history, such as the Civil War and the Progressive Era. What attention the Gilded Age does get is largely negative. Even the name of the age conjures negative images of an overwrought superficial time. Twentieth-century scholars named the period after a novel by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner. Calhoun argues that, while some of the stereotypical corruption of the Gilded Age is accurate, the Gilded Age is a period of “substantial accomplishment.” Calhoun suggests he is not the only holder of this view. Scholars after those who labeled the Gilded Age work to reconsider the Gilded Age. There has been a general shift among scholars to reexamine the Gilded Age. They do not reject the period’s problems, but they also point to the growth of the country’s infrastructure such as public transportation, railroads, factories, the advent of federal regulation like the Sherman Anti-trust Act, and cultural figures such as Mark Twain and John Singer Sergeant.

Calhoun attempts to reevaluate the Gilded Age. He tries to paint a more complex and hopefully more accurate picture of the era, which seems to be an admirable goal. I would say there is probably no age that can be neatly classified negative or positive. For instance, Calhoun uses the example of Gilded Age politics. The stereotypical view held there were two corrupt parties that barely differed in their views. In actuality, many politicians of the Gilded Age “were sincere, dedicated, hardworking public servants.” The main point of the study of history seems to be bringing out the character of the past, without passing judgment. The character of any era will necessarily be complex.

The section of Molly’s post that laid out Calhoun’s implied questions helped illuminate Calhoun’s though process for me. She writes, “What are the stereotypes, why do they exist, to what extent are they accurate, and why should the nuances matter?” This seems to fit the format of Calhoun’s article. He talks about the origin of the term “Gilded Age” and some of the negativity around the era. Then he shows some areas where the stereotypes are not quite accurate. Molly is correct that Calhoun does not quite state why the nuances matter, but I think he implies that a historian’s role is to create as accurate a picture of history as possible; this means historians will often have to revise their perspectives.

January 19, 2014December 16, 2020

Billion-Dollar climate disasters in 2013

Look here for a list from NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)’s list of climate disasters that caused more than one billion dollars’ worth of damage.

January 18, 2014December 16, 2020

California Drought

The New York Times has a piece on an ongoing and dangerous drought in California, complete with some quite good visualizations of the extent of the danger: http://nyti.ms/1cBSC0F

January 18, 2014December 16, 2020

Approaching the Gilded Age: Argumentative vs. Informative

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.’