Carl Smith – American Disasters

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

Chicago Exceptionalism

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

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 6, 2014December 16, 2020

Disaster Boosterism and Fear of the Poor

Carl Smith’s intense analysis of the narrative which formed around the Chicago fire in its aftermath is both fascinating and telling. I think it is, perhaps, an even more revealing analysis than any direct analysis of the fire might be, because the particulars of his investigation expose the thoughts, fears, and culture of Chicago’s narrative-makers.

Clearly, we saw in Cronon’s work that Chicago possessed ample boosters. Yet, boosterism in the face of disaster might still be unexpected; yet, it persisted. To Chicago’s boosters, and indeed many of its citizens, the fire marked Chicago as a great city: “Greater than the catastrophes that consumed Rome, London, and other world capitals, the fire proved that Chicago and America had already surpassed or would soon supersede these other cities in all respects”(130). The logic feels backward, but perhaps it is sound. Indeed, only a significant city could have a disaster on the scale of the Chicago fire of 1871. This is likely true of many disasters; as we have discussed, disasters are the confluence of nature and humanity, with the human element emerging as a decisive division between disasters and events. 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.

On the other hand, the fire brought to light the fear of social instability. The rhetoric that emerged from disaster posited that the ‘respectable’ elements had banded together, unified and determined to survive. The poor were the most significant losers, altogether. From one perspective, they were the malefactors and miscreants who encouraged and spread the fire, looted, raped vulnerable women, and inconsiderately occupied crowded spaces with the wealthy. From another, they were helpless: “Others among the poor died because they evidently lacked the character and resolve to save themselves, which was also why they were poor in the first place”(150). In this case, Smith is merely explaining the narrative that existed, rather than asserting the above himself. These two narratives seem contradictory: these helpless poor, unable to save themselves, were amply able to terrorize the respectable citizens already traumatized by the approaching flames. Displacing the natural horror of the fire with fears of social unrest likely served to reinforce existing social order, implying that through a control of the ‘less respectable’ citizenry, the elite and middle class might be more able to exert control over such uncontrollable events as fire.

I take a more cynical view of preserved and “natural” spaces, such as National Parks, than does Emily. I think that the preservation of these natural spaces is as much a part of the capitalist culture as anything else. National parks and outdoor spaces have been commodified within the ethos of our consumer culture. People drive to these “natural” spaces, spend a day there, bring their own food or purchase it their. Trips down rivers are often guided. My own extensive time spent canoeing Wisconsin’s beautiful waterways has sent me past as many riverside houses, park ranger stations, and farms as anything else. We consume this preserved nature in small doses, which we can easily control. It certainly has an inherent appeal; however, that does not extricate it from capitalism. Capitalism does not judge the things we consume, but makes them available in the most appetizing portions for our consumption. Natural spaces in America have been packaged and labeled for our consumption, and we suspend our knowledge that they are just as “unnatural” as Manhattan as we consume them.