Calhoun – American Disasters

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

The Power of Hardship to Unite

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

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.

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

The Merit of Specificity

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

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 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.’