History Is More Than Just The Facts


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

World War II is often touted as one of the bloodiest moments in history, and for good reason. Children today often grow up hearing tales of the nearly incomprehensible atrocities that occurred during this bleak moment in history, leaving words such as Holocaust, Hiroshima, and Hitler ringing in their ears. But what impressions do these tales really leave on those who have never experienced the unique terror of each individual disaster? And what assurance do those that had an active part in each tragic moment of history have that their terrors won’t fade away as humanity continues its blundering and blind race into the future?

Art is one way to ensure that more than the facts and experiences of history continue forward- it has the ability to encapsulate the emotions of each disaster and invoke them into each viewer. In his dynamic piece, London 1940, Bloomsbury, Clerkenwell, Southwalk, Waterloo (2012), Matthew Picton presents a tangible way to keep these memories alive through his vivid portrayal of just a sliver of the damage mankind wrought on both itself and nature in London, 1940. Picton’s piece incorporates text, paper, and charcoal into a meaningful rendition of the impact of German aerial bombing on the city of London during World War II. Yellowed paper fragments that are formed to depict the layout of the city of London vividly contrast with blackened sections of the “city” where the paper buildings have been completely burned away, leaving nothing behind but the foundations and black smudges of ash.

In regard to the intention behind his piece, Picton states: “The city represents a fragile compact between the forces of nature and those of human desire and inequality” (State of Emergency exhibit). In extension to Picton’s analysis of his own work, it is certainly apparent that in the continual battle between nature and man, man often destroys not only nature, but also himself. Picton’s inclusion of the Thames River, smudged and dirtied with charcoal, brings an element of nature into his rendition of London. The treatment of the surface of the Thames plainly demonstrates the effect man has on the purity of nature. Yet, far more garish than the smudged surface of the Thames are the black abysses left in the center of London from the bombings. The devastation from the bombings makes it clear that man not only has the power to irreparably damage nature, but also through the process to destroy himself and his creations.

Extending beyond Picton’s synopsis of the power of his own work, viewers and historians alike can more broadly analyze the impact that a piece like this can have on the study of history.  Picton’s rendition of midcentury London suggests that no piece of history, however small, is unimportant. Though perhaps larger World War II tragedies such as the Holocaust and the nuclear bombings in Japan overshadow in some ways the bombings in London, as historians it is absolutely imperative not to gloss over any moment in history, no matter how small. Though his piece depicts only a small fragment of the city of London and an even smaller sliver of the damage left in Europe from World War II, the impact of this disaster cannot be overstated.

While staring at Picton’s rendition of wartime London, it is easy to feel the confusion and panic London citizens must have felt as they raced among the haphazard and disorderly London streets to escape the falling bombs. This is why art can be such a powerful tool- it can invoke emotions in such a way that allows the viewer to feel as though they are part of that moment in history instead of just an observer.

Defining disasters and their study: a topic of multidisciplinary interest


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

In this week’s readings, both Bergman and Hewitt ponder the characteristics of disasters: how are they defined? What are their prominent elements? What are their implications? How do they fall within the delineations of academic inquiry?

I found Hewitt’s analysis succinct and focused, and therefore more useful. Perhaps most usefully, Hewitt distinguishes between the routine–highway, smoking, lifestyle related deaths–and the more unexpected ‘extreme events’ (Hewitt 5). These fall into the major categories of natural, technological, and war-related disasters. He also suggests some important characteristics of disasters such as their concentrated death and injury; their wont to catch individuals or societies unaware, and perhaps represent a new, previously unknown, threat; and their natural tendency to overwhelm previously functional societal and governmental systems.

Bergman’s work, more so than Hewitt’s, is a historiographical analysis. Analyzing, or at least mentioning, a wide variety of historiography on disasters, Bergman asserts clearly that disasters are necessarily social and human. Furthermore, he argues that those analyses which separate the human from the exogenous cause of the disaster are incomplete. Indeed, I believe this to be true: in their history of the disasters and upheaval in reformation Europe, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe, Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell argue the illogic of trying to find every early modern disease’s contemporary counterpart. Convincingly, they write that the disease is no more the bacterium or virus that causes it than it is the experience of the disease itself. For example, syphilis in 2014–many years after penicillin–bears little resemblance, in terms of experience, to syphilis in 1500. Likewise with disasters: the greatest earthquake or flood is no disaster without the human experience, regardless of its other effects.

Compellingly, one might argue that this definition is more inclusive than it might seem at first. Human compassion may include many disasters which cost no human lives, directly or otherwise: the Exxon-Valdez spill comes to mind.

Eventually, it seems the definition of a disaster will lack some specificity, such that it may include the wide variety of events which the humans who experience them deem disasters. I believe that to be acceptable: historians (and geographers) can continue their study of those events that they, or others, deemed disasters in their own experience.