American Disasters – Page 13 – Just another My blog Sites site

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Morality and Consumerism

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

An interesting point that Edwards discussed in chapter 4 of New Spirits is the relationship between women, morality and consumerism during the Gilded Age. As this age progressed and industrialization as well as urbanization continued to swell, material objects began to take on weight that they had never held before. Certain methods of travel, parties, and fashion all became status symbols that proved an individual was superior to the majority of the population (95).

Women’s fashion became a popular avenue for the display of such Social Darwinist attitudes. As shopping typically fell into the female societal role, women in particular fell prey to rising consumerism and increasing advertisements.

An interesting paradox in the relationship between woman and consumerism lies in this era’s understanding of the female character. Women were typically regarded as fragile and easily corruptible; their delicate sensibilities required them to be isolated from business and industry because of these circles corrupting influences. Yet, as consumerism grew and women’s independence slowly increased, women were thrust into the middle of American consumer culture and all of its corrupting influence. Edwards suggests that during this time period “material standards posed many moral problems” as consumerism grew and became central to American culture(96). This situation is intriguing in that women, who represented morality in humanity, could no longer be kept apart from societal corruption. Edwards mentions William Dean Howells’s book, The Rise of Silas Lepham, as an example of this loss in innocence (95).

Society and its social boundaries could not stay the same through the rise of consumerism. As Emily mentioned, women’s roles adapted in many ways beyond consumerism through the Gilded Age’s progression.

It is important to keep in mind the characterization of women during this time period in order to understand the “moral problems” associated with consumerism. People believed that women were particularly vulnerable to this rising corrupt consumer culture.

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

The Wedge

In Chapters 3 and 4 of New Spirits, Rebecca Edwards presents two distinct accounts of the Gilded Age economy. One depicts a period of unbridled economic growth. In this period, titans of industry accumulated vast fortunes and middle class professionals carved out positions in the growing economy. The plight of the working class offers a sharp contrast to the opulence of the higher classes. It seems difficult to reconcile these two competing narratives. However, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

This is where Henry George’s wedge construct becomes useful. Edwards adopts the idea of a wedge separating Americans to reinforce the notion that Gilded Age was a period of sharp divisions between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Factory workers worked in unsafe conditions for longer hours, while socialites in New York held extravagant parties at their million dollar homes. The wedge is evident here.

Income inequality appears to be a central element of Chapter 4. Edwards discusses the political battles fought over currency that further strengthened the socio-economic divide. The discussion of class division in this section is very similar to current political discussions. Both time periods feature a widely held belief that industrialists and bankers are responsible for an economic downturn. Similarly, both periods have unequal wealth accumulation at the top. The belief that this inequality is wrong is a facet of both time periods. The time period in the chapter was obviously worse than the current situation, but it is useful to note how long this argument has prevailed.

Whether discussing money or occupation during the Gilded Age, the notion of a wedge separating the upper and lower classes is an invaluable explanation for the time period.

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

The Power of Hardship to Unite

Chapters three and four of New Spirits present an interesting, although stereotypical account of the Gilded Age, examining ‘work’ and ‘money.’ The overall impression that these chapters present is one of hardship for the masses, from brakemen to cowboys. This impression coincides with the traditional reading of the Gilded Age as a time of corruption and big money, which directly contradicts Charles W. Calhoun’s call for a reexamination and reevaluation of the true legacy of the Gilded Age in his piece, “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age”. Interestingly, this is a reading that Rebecca Edwards, the author of New Spirits, also calls for in her introduction. However, the way in which the chapters on work and money are presented adhere to the reading that she previously criticized.

For another class this week, I read primary source accounts of women’s lives in Germany during the 1920’s. What struck me was how much this reading echoed the New Spirits reading, providing key insight into daily life in the factory. Although Edwards repeatedly mentions the greater working conditions that Europeans faced in comparison to their American counterparts, the primary source accounts that I read told of hard work, long hours, and little pay. The comparison that I have made between early twentieth century Germany and America argue for similarities that unite beyond boarders and oceans, that unite people in the human experience.

Although contemporaries were unable to see or unwilling to act on similar experiences beyond international boarders, the power of hardship and shared experience to unite is prevalent within the United States, in the Gilded Age and today. Edwards talks about the mutual benefit associations that workers formed (67), as well as taverns as “informal working man’s clubs” (92). This can be extended to the booster vision of the Chicago fire, and their attempts to portray the fire as a uniting event. While it may have been exaggerated, there is usually some truth in every story. The shared traumatic event of the fire brought together the city, at least to some extent. To extend this to the present day, I will focus on the example that Nate brought up in class the other day about the snow storm that crippled Atlanta: while it was a hardship on everyone involved, the people pulled together and helped out. The power of shared experience to unite is strong, and has been traditionally under estimated.

I agree whole-heartedly with Nate’s point that “primary sources give us a perceptive account of historical events,” and I think the example that I have brought up on the similarities that were highlighted in the primary sources nicely illustrates this point.

February 13, 2014December 16, 2020

Davidson snows of yore

We might think of the snow as anomalous, but Davidsonians of previous years have also had to contend with storms (and also took lots of pictures of the snow!)

As promised, here are some pictures of historical Davidson snowstorms from the DPLA:

An impressively artistic Davidson snowman, 1929

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

Chicago Exceptionalism

Contrary to what the title might suggest, I will not be talking about deep dish pizza. I will, however, discuss Carl Smith’s well-written article, “Faith and Doubt,” and the importance of the Chicago fire. Rarely do I ever enjoy reading (I picked the wrong major), but Smith’s analysis of the fire’s social affect on the city whetted my appetite for something different than descriptions of the fire’s physical destruction. One of his arguments claims that, at least among fire literature and Chicagoans, the city’s importance grew following the fire. He claims “the destruction indicated not the degree of Chicago’s venality or misfortune, but the grandeur of its destiny.” (130) The Chicago fire became the city’s “epic moment” that spawned a belief that Chicago was “pure, heroic, and modern.” (131) Religious explanations for the fire further contributed to this thinking by claiming “God smote the city…as a warning and a lesson for all other cities.” (135) Therefore, members of the city and nation must protect the valuable future of Chicago (by protecting the social order) because only Chicagoans could withstand such a divine beating. I viewed these religious justifications as comparable with the struggles of Job in the Bible. Smith cites individuals that believed the deaths as a result of the fire were deserved due to a lack of “character and resolve.” (150)

Countering this view of Chicago’s perfect post-fire community, Smith provides numerous examples of terrible actions performed by these supposedly “good” people. Thieves, looters, and whiskey-drinking women plagued the city. Although many of these criminal accounts were exaggerated, Smith hits the nail on the head by claiming that the fire brought all forms of society down to the lowest level. (151) To quote my esteemed colleague Price, who quoted Smith, “inequalities of society were now leveled off as smooth as the beach itself.” (157) The fire evened up the playing field by destroying a significant aspect crucial to class separation: material wealth.

Perhaps because Chicago did not witness a pivotal battle in the Civil War, I often forget of its existence during this period. Reconstruction, disenfranchisement, and southern hostility are the key words I think of eight years following “The War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance.”* Smith, however, reminds us (me) that the city did exist and became instrumental in the nation’s healing process after the war. I never thought of that angle, but his justification for this claim persuaded me to believe him. Many Americans donated to assist the burned city and focused on Chicago’s needs instead of other social disagreements. “The rest of the country forgot its petty artificial division and rediscovered its finest collective self,” claimed Smith. (141) Although I think Smith may have exaggerated to the extent these petty differences were forgotten, I thought back to 9/11 and how unified America was. Following 9/11, President Bush’s approval rating was through the roof; proof that disaster causes those affected to forget other predicaments. In the wise words of my Davidson advisor, “when shit hits the fan, people rally around their own.”

*One of many ridiculous names for the Civil War. For further reading and laughs, http://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-different-names-for-the-civil-war.76252/

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

Examining the Archetypical Chicagoan

In Carl Smith’s “Faith and Doubt: the Imaginative Dimensions of the Great Chicago Fire,” he discusses two of the major types of responses to the Chicago. The first posits Chicago as a distinctive entity, stresses its God-given destiny as the Queen of the West (some members of this school went so far as to argue that the magnitude of destruction demonstrated Chicago’s preeminence over other major cities, such as Paris, that also experience fires), and reduces its immoral reputation (gambling, prostitution etc.). This view largely ignores class distinctions. Conversely, the second view stresses the dangers of the lower class and explains how, without the social barriers, the lower class is truly as evil (satanic and demon-like were frequent comparisons) as the upper classes feared them to be.

Initially I found these views to be irreconcilable; one is founded on the reduction to an archetypical Chicagoan, while the other is based around the construction of class distinctions and their associated morals. However, after reading Catherine’s post regarding the classism in the Chicago fire, I began to reconsider this distinction. I was particularly interested in her discussion of boosters’ roles in providing a narrative for the Chicago fire and subsequently prompting the recovery effort. It is important to consider that these boosters were targeting upper class Americans capable of investing necessary capital into Chicago. We must then consider that these references to the archetypical Chicagoan were in fact references to the upper class Chicagoan. This would allow these initial two views to become reconcilable.

I would argue that a combination of these views can be understood as a warning against sectionalism within upper class America. By sensationalizing the ways in which the fire destroyed class boundaries, writers reminded other members of the American upper class that their position, like these Chicagoans (who are relatable because of the way that the ‘first view’ stressed their upstanding morals), were in constant jeopardy to the whims of God, Nature, and the subsequent horrors of the class intermingling so well represented by the, often fabricated, stories of crime during the fire. A stress on both Chicago’s upstanding morals and its prior financial eminence is extremely important; by reminding the upper-class of their financial and social frailty it also demonstrated the need for a unity among the upper class.

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

The “Common Brotherhood”: The Memorialization of the Chicago Fire

Carl Smith’s “Faith and Doubt: The Imaginative Dimensions of the Chicago Fire” provides two commonly accepted, but opposing, depictions of the Great Chicago Fire in the late 1800s. The first argued that the Fire was an act of deus ex machine, with God reaching his hand down to Earth and tearing down institutions of malice. The second, and more foreboding, depiction instead viewed the Fire as a great revelation of the sins and evils within the city that humanity must work to ameliorate. Both views can be boiled down to one question: was the fire a reformation in itself, or a call to action for reform? For many observers, the fire was itself a positive, unifying force that tore down social barriers and created a singular community and a “common brotherhood” of Chicagoans. (141) However, the landed classes in Chicago viewed the newly level playing field with hysteria and paranoia, calling it an indistinguishable blend of “human creatures and maddened animals.” (158) Smith writes this piece to remind us that the “moral value” of disaster is entirely based on perspective.

As Casey noted earlier today, Smith does an excellent job juxtaposing the “recovery and hospitality” after the fire with the “violence and corruption” that occurred during it. The first half of Smith’s article focuses entirely on positive memorializations of the fire. His sources range from pastors who praise the fire as a destruction of Chicago’s “gambling-hell” and “primal sin of selfishness” to journalists who celebrate the response as “kindling the fire of sympathy” within the nation (133/141/142). These positive interpretations of the blaze highlight how the incident served as a “trial of the city’s character,” with the city emerging as unified and determined to rebuild (136). The second half of his article is less cheery, stressing the chaotic reports of people who experienced the fire firsthand. Law, order, and the established social structure break down in favor of looting, lynching, and vigilante justice. The class divides that existed before the fire “were leveled off as smooth as the beach itself,” as fire proved to be a thoroughly class-blind destroyer of property (157). The “swift justice” (A&E reality show potential there) that met thieves in the form of lynching and hanging proved to be a barbaric foil to the great sympathy and care shown to survivors after the fire (153).

“Faith and Doubt,” while not making any bold argument on the moral value of the Great Chicago Fire, serves as a fitting reminder that no disaster can ever be interpreted as purely “good.” While the relief efforts and tales of rebuilding are inspiring, the memoirs of the survivors document a darker story. In the Lord of the Flies-type environment created by the fire, it was every man for himself, with justice nowhere to be found. Smith gives us a solemn example of how “leveling the playing field” may not be quite as idyllic as we hoped it to be.

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

An Ideological Thermometer

In the wake of disaster, often our attempts at conceptualization provide valuable insight as to our values or belief systems. In the cases like Pernin’s work on the Peshtigo fire, access to one man’s beliefs, in this case Catholicism and God’s divine will, can be found in his attempt to understand his experiences. The Chicago fire, however, presents a unique opportunity to access the nation’s belief system due to the volume of explanatory work that grew out of the city’s newspapers, correspondence, writing from various other great cities across the nation, etc. Due to the sheer magnitude of individuals concerned with what transpired in Chicago and the volume of explanatory work available, we are able to do a case study of the nation’s maxims. Carl Smith’s, “Faith and Doubt” is an in-depth review of the two distinct ways that Chicagoans and others attempted to explain the significance of the Chicago fire. What becomes clear upon examination is that both these explanations are the result of the intersection between three crucial elements of American society: religion, class, and American exceptionalism.

The first method of explanation that Carl Smith describes in his piece is the view of Chicago rising from the ashes like a phoenix as a moral pillar that was chosen by God to uplift the nation. This explanation asserts that the Chicago was essentially baptized by the fire, and that only the most pure, most pious, most humble, and most hardworking of the population remains. It also asserts that God hand-picked Chicago to be this uplifting example, and that only Chicago could have emerged triumphant from a trial such as this. Also, this explanation posits that through her misfortune the rest of the United States could return to its philanthropic and giving core. Essentially this version explains the fire as a gift and declares Chicago’s future bright as ever.

This explanation is essentially an intersection of religious fervor and a strong belief in American exceptionalism. This explanation provides evidence that the country is still very much a religious nation, looking to the Bible and God’s divine will as explanation for misfortune. Their belief that Chicago was hand-selected and uniquely prepared to emerge triumphant from this kind of disaster – which is why God chose Chicago rather than say London – is indicative of this belief in American exceptionalism.

The second method of explanation that Carl Smith describes in his piece is the view of Chicago sinking into fiery peril. There is talk of God’s punishment being exacted upon the city, and a focus on the crime that runs rampant in the wake of the fire. They describe the fire as an act of Satan which was designed to plunge the city into ruin. There is the juxtaposition of “good” wealthy or middle-class Chicagoans suffering at the hands of vagabonds who are now free to enter the city to take advantage of its vulnerability. And furthermore, there is the characterization of the lower-class Chicagoans taking over parts of the city where they were previously not welcome as a result of their own deplorable way of life.

This explanation, like the previous one, utilizes religion to explain the significance of the Chicago fire. In this case, God is exacting his judgment against the city, and therefore it should be taken as a warning to change their way of life. It is even characterized as an attack of the Devil. The emphasis on the good majority of Chicagoans – wealthy and middle-class inhabitants – being taken advantage of by vagabonds – lower-class inhabitants – is indicative of class stratification. Catherine Schmidt talks about the element of class that comes into play in reference to the Chicago fire. The tension between the classes, with the wealthy dismissing the poor as dirty, conniving, responsible for their plight, and ready to steal from those who worked hard for their success, is very clear here. The tensions that arise along with industrialization and the urbanization that occurred as a result play out here.

Therefore, it is clear that the United States, at the time of the Chicago fire, was still a very religious minded country, that believed in American exceptionalism, and struggled with the intensification of class stratification that is born of the industrial revolution. Often what we learn from eyewitness accounts, and primary sources such as newspaper articles or pieces of art, is what those who created them were thinking. We learn about their fears, belief systems, hopes, and aspirations. And by tapping into a large enough body of these sources, we can almost take the ideological temperature of the nation.

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

The Great Chicago Fire: Recovery and Retaliation

Carl Smith writes that the Chicago Fire of 1871 invigorated the religiousness of the city and created an increased awareness of social order in “Faith and Doubt”. While he does supply various examples to support both arguments, the theme most apparent to me was that the Great Fire reinforced classism by allowing white Christian males to dominate the reconstruction of the city.

The religious writing after this disaster probably stemmed from account’s like Father Peter Pernin’s who acknowledged the Godly forces that caused calamity and purified the land. Pernin also writes that those who had healthy relationships with God were those who survived, which inadvertently suggests the reason he was able to write the account.

Many of the survivors, who became homeless, were cared for by the swift surge of heroes in the area. Chicagoans were willing to break into burning buildings, donate capital, and all the while maintain modesty in events such as weddings. As Smith notes, they “were eager to point out that the destruction certainly seemed to have an egalitarian disregard for class distinctions that was beneficial to those who seemed to lose the most” (137). Mortality-focused reactions to contemporary disasters have come a long way from the renovational attitudes that were that era. Eli points out “today, our public figures are quicker to mourn the losses than to highlight the silver lining of a disaster. Leaders in the Gilded Age, however, seemed to remain relentlessly positive in the face of disaster”

Boosters, a distinguishable breed of Chicago residents, would emphasize the altruism and recovery of the great city, however, whom were these heroes helping? The slums suffered equally, if not worse, to other neighbors, and resource deprivation led to unorthodox methods of obtaining help. The system is accustomed to reciprocating “‘thieves, burglars and cut-throats, bent on plunder, and who will not hesitate to burn, pillage and even murder’” and “rape, arson, and murder” with lynching and death. Instead of an age of religious renewal, it is more accurate to say this was an “age of terror” (148) mirroring the tragedies the north had fought so hard to defeat less than ten years prior.

It is not that crime is justifiable, nor do I doubt that in this time people were psychologically prepared to combat crime. Quite honestly, I am not sure how I would react if I were driven from my house, leaving behind material possessions, and later saw someone of a lower socio-economic status enter my house to scavenge through my personal items. It is interesting to reflect on the dimensions of “loss”.

This disparity between the promoted images of recovery and hospitality and the accounts of violence and corruption remind me Rozario’s article, “What Comes Down Must Go Up,” which describes the economic vitality of San Francisco following the Earthquake in 1906 at the expense of the lower class who could not afford housing and were forced to the outskirts of town.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

Searching for the Cause of the Chicago Fire

Eli doesn’t think the cow did it, Garrett thinks it was ‘Peg-Leg’ Sullivan, and Richard Bales seems to agree with both of them. After reading through Bales’ website (which I agree with Eli doesn’t seem to work as an extremely effective historiography, but proves interesting nonetheless), I came to the conclusion that whoever/whatever caused the initial spark of the Great Chicago fire can’t be held accountable for the whole disaster. On whomever one would like to ascribe the blame–Mrs. O’Leary, the cow, ‘Peg-Leg’, Regan–the disastrous outcome on the fire was ultimately a result of a combination of events on the night of October 8th.

Bales explains that Mrs. O’Leary was exonerated for 7 reasons, most of which were failures on the part of the Fire Department to accurately locate the fire quickly, as well as equipment malfunctions. Had such mistakes not occurred, Bales suggests that it is likely that the fire would not have caused such widespread damage.

I think that there is a tendency in history (and in society in general) to want to ascribe blame to one person or one group of people. For example, was the reason the Titanic disastrous because there weren’t enough lifeboats? There was complacency on the part of the crew? Not solid enough engineering efforts? Surely it was a combination of all of the aforementioned reasons. If we take a look at more recent disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the BP Oil Spill, there was an intense effort following each event to place blame. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism or a way to better comprehend the effects of a disaster, however, as students looking at history, instead of trying to find out the exact cause of disasters like the Chicago Fire, we should aim to gather a more comprehensive list of all the reasons the event turned into a disaster.

To quickly comment on Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo Fire, I agree with Catherine and Nate about the value of this particular primary source in better understanding historical events. I just wanted to pose a question about aside from Chicago being a more prominent locale, why does the Peshtigo Fire seem to be lost in memory?