Simply put, there is no unique or correct way for anyone to classify and approach the general term of disasters.\u00a0 As stated in both the class discussion and throughout the readings, disasters can be technological, natural, man-made, or some intricate hybrid.\u00a0 Disasters are such a unique aspect of our culture because their uncertainty allows for interpretation and debate. \u00a0As Bergman mentions, there is no one disciple that disaster study is limited to.\u00a0 Based on this initial first day of reading, it has become clear how this simple term has so much more complexity than I originally thought.\u00a0 Throughout the readings, both Hewitt and Bergman demonstrate that in history each disaster is unique and requires specific analysis.\u00a0 As people try to generalize all disasters as a singular term, the more question emerge.\u00a0 While both Hewitt and Bergman have different thesis, they are both right because their analysis is a historical overview rather than a specific theory.\u00a0 Hewitt\u2019s argument about uniqueness and an understanding through cultural immersion based on context is very much valid.\u00a0 We cannot compare disasters from different time periods, different locations, or different cultures because every disaster has a unique impact on time and space.\u00a0 This theory blends well with Bergman\u2019s idea that there can be no evolution into a disaster classification.\u00a0 Disasters are unexplainable in a modern sense and our understanding can only be completed through analysis and historical research.\u00a0 Essentially these theories blend together, in my mind, in that every \u201cdisaster\u201d is unique and can only be fully understood when the full ramifications are felt and analyzed.<\/p>\n
This combined interpretation of the readings troubled me as I recollected a section early on in Hewitt\u2019s introduction.\u00a0 Hewitt mentions the media and radical rise disaster classifications between 1989 and 1993.\u00a0 By his research the media identified about 110 technological disasters and 50 natural disasters. (page 7)\u00a0 What troubles me was not that the have been a vast spike in disasters but the idea that the media now has such an impact on modern history. Today, our society has accepted the media\u2019s focus on \u201cdisasters\u201d and developed strong interests in conflict and despair. However, does the media too easily magnify any event into a disaster and as a society do we accept it?\u00a0 Certainly there is strong evidence correlating modern technology and the destruction of environment, but does the modernization of our society create every disaster or are we too easily classifying anything unexpected under this broad term of disaster?\u00a0 Having done no prior primary source research about Gilded Age disasters, this semester will provide a unique opportunity to compare the modern media against early newspapers and publications.\u00a0 I am looking forward to seeing if the United States has always magnified every event or if this trend of inflated dramatization is truly a modern response for societies\u2019 new interest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Simply put, there is no unique or correct way for anyone to classify and approach the general term of disasters.\u00a0 As stated in both the class discussion and throughout the readings, disasters can be technological, natural, man-made, or some intricate hybrid.\u00a0 Disasters are such a unique aspect of our culture because their uncertainty allows for … <\/p>\n