From his title alone\u2014The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself<\/i>\u2014we can identify one of Fradkin\u2019s main arguments: much of the damage wrought during the earthquake and firestorms was self-inflicted by those in charge in San Francisco.\u00a0 Fradkin identifies a number of different ways the leadership in San Francisco failed those it served. 300 distribution mains and 23,200 connecting pipes that spread water throughout the town were fractured, so firemen could not extinguish the fires with water (72).\u00a0 Firemen, instead of miners who had experience with explosives, tried (and failed) to fight fire with fire (76).\u00a0 Acting Commander Funston marched troops into the town with no orders to do so, leading civilians to believe they were under Marshall law and to an unclear chain of command (63).\u00a0 Mayor Schmitz ordered that all looters be shot on sight since there was no place for a prison (67).<\/p>\n
Fradkin clearly conveys to his readers that these would have been avoidable occurrences had there been better preparation for earthquakes and fires, fewer class\/language barriers, and more communication between government and people. However, the tone of this article is much more understanding and forgiving than narratives we have recently read about the Galveston Hurricane, which as Jeremiah<\/a> points out implied a degree of hubris that I now associate with most Gilded Age disasters.\u00a0 While Fradkin notes that other towns looked down on San Francisco as being a \u201csinful city,\u201d he does so in a remarkably objective manner, citing a poem advertising a whisky store which made light of the city\u2019s poor reputation (171).\u00a0 He also tempers the argument that damage was self-inflicted with a counterargument that several aspects of the 1906 San Francisco fire were competently dealt with.\u00a0 Navy Lieutenant Frederick N. Freeman, Fradkin argues, saved the waterfront of San Francisco, providing a safe supply line for relief to enter the city (172).<\/p>\n I think Fradkin uses this disaster to separate blame from institutional and cultural disparities.\u00a0 For example, he does not blame any group or individual for the tragic inequality of experience felt by members of the clubs and inhabitants of Chinatown.\u00a0 Instead, Fradkin points to the commonalities between the two cultures in claiming that both sought places to worship.\u00a0 Although Fradkin points to racism, he often does so in the passive voice: \u201cFew Asians were counted as victims.\u00a0 It was as if they did not exist\u201d (110-111).\u00a0 Although I\u2019m not sure whether or not I agree that we should separate blame from institutional and cultural disparities, I think this text is distinct from others we have read thus far.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From his title alone\u2014The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself\u2014we can identify one of Fradkin\u2019s main arguments: much of the damage wrought during the earthquake and firestorms was self-inflicted by those in charge in San Francisco.\u00a0 Fradkin identifies a number of different ways the leadership in San Francisco failed … <\/p>\n