Triangle Factory Fire of 1911 – American 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

As Sarah notes in her post, many historians have critiqued McCullough for his writing style for not being truly historical or academic in nature. While some of this criticism is certainly well deserved, I would like to note that his patchwork style is extremely valuable in the way that it allows us to understand the Johnstown Flood as a structural societal fault, rather than one of individual culpability.

One of the largest takeaways from our class discussion on Tuesday was the way in which McCullough was able to effectively diffuse blame among individuals. This was accomplished by skillfully weaving together a narrative that references a multitude of characters rather than focusing on one character that best represents the narrative that he is hoping to portray. No one person’s action is overly singled out as accountable. Interestingly, The Johnstown’s Flood was still able to single out heroic actions. It is this inability to conclusively find fault and this ability to identify heroes that is of great interest to me, particularly in the way that it parallels the Triangle Factory Fire of 1911. I recently wrote a paper for another class that attempted to argue that the Triangle Fire is so imprinted into the national memory because of its massive juxtaposition between public understanding and legal recourse. To provide some background the Triangle Fire was a factory fire that resulted in the deaths of 146 women. Importantly, it resulted from an improperly constructed building with a faulty fire escape, locked doors that actually prevented workers from escaping, and a complete lack of any fire protocol or oversight by its owners who were repeatedly warned of its dangers. Yet despite seemingly obviously guilt, no one was charged. This to me was the most interesting; the fire seemed to occupy precisely the point in history at which public understanding outpaced legislation. General public understanding acknowledged the insufficiency and evils of factory conditions and the culpability of owners for consciously risking lives to increase profits, yet, despite this public agreement, legal recourse didn’t exist. To public the Triangle Fire clearly the fault of the individual owners, yet legally it was representative of a societal deficiency that individuals couldn’t be held accountable for. In the same way McCulloughs writing style implicitly argues that the Johnstown Flood, regardless of how many seemingly inexcusable individual faults contributed to its destructiveness was, at its core, a structural flaw in society. As tempting as it is to blame the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, after all they were basely responsible for the dam’s dangerous conditions, McCullough prose seems to suggest that the disaster was truly born from structural flaws. This is strongly paralleled by the way that there was a massive public outcry for the condemnation of the factories owners, yet a preceding report had shown that, relative to other garment factories, the Triangle Factory had far from the most dangerous conditions.

My paper will seek to understand the role that demographical similarity between those affected by disasters and those responding to disasters plays in the mobilization and formulation of aid and legislation. More specifically, I’m curious if aid is more likely to come from those who are demographically similar to victims. I will examine the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the Triangle Fire of 1911. I find these two sources to be of particular interest due to the ways in which their contrasting narratives might manifest themselves into contrasting aid objectives. Much of the narrative surrounding the Chicago Fire centered on upper class hardships due to the removal of social barriers and subsequent abuse by Chicago’s lower class. In contrast the dominant narrative of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire centered on the exploitation of the lower class by a predatory and greedy upper class. One of the questions that must be addressed in order to pursue this topic is whether or not differing focuses on aid, in particular maintenance of class boundaries versus lower class protection, developed over time rather than as specific responses to each disaster. More specifically, was the lower class focus of the Triangle Fire’s recovery a product of the ‘progressive era’ rather than specific to the Triangle Fire itself? Conversely, was the upper class focus of the recovery efforts for the Great Chicago Fire stem from the era’s emphasis on speculation and economic productivity over social responsibility? Answers for this question could potentially be found by comparing which organizations led the relief efforts for disasters occurring around the time of the Chicago fire and the Triangle fire. Another question is whether the response to the Chicago Fire even favored the upper class over the lower class? The existence of committees such as the “Special Relief Committee” of the Relief and Aid Society suggests that it might have, though this was only a small facet of the recovery effort. A third question that is extremely central to the overarching thrust of this paper revolves around the rationale of charity. Are people more inclined to provide aid when they can identify with the victims of a disaster? This has important implications for both the Chicago Fire and the Triangle fire; an understanding of who is leading the relief effort is invaluable for understanding the type of relief that the disaster prompted. Primary sources that will be valuable for understanding both this question and the topic on the whole include newspaper articles (particularly whether an event is more likely to be discussed by a progressive or conservative paper), records of donations (who was most compelled to give aid), accounts of rallies or demonstrations following the disaster (the funeral processions following the Triangle Fire were absolutely massive and demonstrate overwhelming conviction despite many of its participants being too poor to donate), and records of the organizations leading the relief effort (the Chicago Fire was led by the a society comprised of industrial leaders, the Triangle fire was led by unions and women’s societies).

Tag: Triangle Factory Fire of 1911

Societal v. Individual Culpability: Parallels between Johnstown’s and Triangle’s Historical Narratives

Looking Out for Your Own: Empathy’s Role in Disaster Relief