The Importance of Primary Sources in Disasters


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

I loved reading the primary source of Father Peter Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo Fire. Not only does he give a detailed account of the catastrophe, but he also writes with literary fluidity, which allows the reader to become even more engrossed in what occurred in Peshtigo. I agree with caschmidt in that reading a primary source of a disaster was very refreshing, and it is definitely necessary for better understanding natural disasters when primary sources are available.

Not only do primary sources give us a perceptive account of historical events, but they also give us an eye into what the people were like of the time and how that affected their outlook on the events. Knowing that Pernin is a priest, he was an important figure of the town as demonstrated by the many people who knew him during the events. This gives us a totally different perspective than one of the laborers in the town that were only there for a short while in order to build the railroad. I also like how Pernin pointed out that we learn from danger. That is the premise of this course and how to better understand natural disasters so that we can  learn the most possible from them. Throughout the beginning of his account, he writes about the ill-prepared not making it through the disaster; this goes back to our discussion about preparedness and how that can affect the impact of the disaster on society. Preparedness, or lack thereof, is of utmost importance to preventing disasters, and this account shows that Peshtigo was not ready, and the people did not want to deal with disaster even when it was bearing down on their backs.

I don’t think the cow did it


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

And even if it did, it’s a cow, so is it really to blame?

Richard Bales’ investigation of the Chicago fire of 1871 seems like a crime scene investigation, more than historiographical work. I certainly share his chagrin that the investigatory committee did not further investigate  “Peg Leg” Sullivan and Dennis Regan more, since their testimony does seem strange and not very believable. I wonder, also, why none of Bales’ documents include testimony from anyone at the McLaughlin party, since they were closest to the barn and were still, according to Mrs. O’Leary’s testimony, awake at the time. It seems deeply unfair that Mrs. O’Leary was assumed to be instantly guilty. Her testimony as well, in my opinion, seems somewhat jumbled, which cannot have favorably impacted her case.

Denser, lengthier and yet more interesting was Father Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo fire. I don’t think that I could have chosen a better person to describe such an event: his command of language, combined with his spiritual attitude of morality driving results, and belief that the fire may be the apocalypse itself makes for quite an interesting description. For instance: “I perceived above the the dense cloud of smoke overhanding the earth, a vivid red reflection of immense extent, and then suddenly struck on my ear, strangely audible in the preternatural silence reigning around, a distant roaring, yet muffled sound, announcing that the elements were in commotion somewhere” (253). Such a description balances ominous portents with matter-of-fact description to create a chilling and vivid scene. He also seems to imply, on some occasions, that certain people died in the inferno due to their misbegotten behavior: the guests of the party who laughed at him, the dog that didn’t come with him, his horse that wouldn’t follow (even when he used its name, if you can believe that!).

All in all, he creates a scene of grand chaos, which elegantly describes what must have been a horrifying experience for everyone involved. Certainly, little can be worse than surviving such horror, only to return to bury the dead and care for the dying. One thing that I found particularly odd was that the townspeople chose to hang the man looting corpses, but then let him go. I suppose that there was no modicum of punishment available in this particular case, what with the fire and all.

Finally, I want to disagree with Marston’s claim that Cronon underestimated the role of technology, science and industrialization in driving Chicago’s rise.  Cronon’s analysis continually examines the ways in which the “natural advantages” of Chicago–the river, the location near the lake, the surrounding plains–were often fraught with drawbacks. He documents well the ways in which Chicago and her boosters subverted nature in order to create a city from the mud. Ultimately, Cronon’s vision of Chicago is much more of a city crafted from “capital geography” than its natural counterpart.