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
Steven Biel asserts in his introduction, “the essays in this book recognize that disasters generate meaning” (4). The article by Kevin Rozario, titled “What Comes Down Must Go Up,” proposes that disasters portend a boon for American capitalism. Rozario focuses his article on the San Francisco fire and earthquake of 1906, but he also includes many other examples to support his claim. Rozario explains that disasters spark capitalism through a concept termed “creative destruction.” The term creative destruction insinuates, “that modern capitalist systems require the continual obliteration of outmoded goods and structures to clear space and make way for new production and development” (73). Essentially, as Rozario demonstrates using the example of San Francisco in 1906, the destruction of a city offers a clean slate for business. San Francisco had to be rebuilt, and cutting edge technology could be used to make the city better than it had been before. Beneficial financial opportunities abounded for bankers, investors, construction companies, and realtors. The rebuilding of San Francisco, as Rozario describes it, was a boon for capitalism.
Throughout the article, Rozario presents the idea of creative destruction in a positive light. Rozario focuses on the benefits and positive impacts that natural disasters have on capitalism. Then, in a sudden turn of events, Rozario concludes “the benefits, however, have not been spread equally, and we all have to find a way to live with and under a capitalist system that must constantly destroy to create, and at times seems to create solely in order to destroy” (96). I think this is a very valid point, but it is extremely underdeveloped in Rozario’s article. The conclusion leaves the reader wondering whether or not Rozario believes natural disasters have an overall positive effect on capitalism. As Manish notes in his post, humans have the opportunity to adapt to natural disasters. For much of the article, it seems as though Rozario is arguing that American capitalism has adapted and improved because of natural disasters. The closing paragraph, however, seems to question the entirety of his article. As previously mentioned, I think Rozario’s conclusion makes for an interesting discussion. The problem is that Rozario does not begin the discussion about the negative aspects caused by natural disasters in capitalist America, and instead leaves it entirely to the reader. The closing paragraph appears in complete opposition to the rest of the article, and Rozario offers no evidence to support his concluding claim.
Although it was not discussed in my particular chapter, I was intrigued by the statement in the introduction that “there are no chapters here about wars, which are the most devastating of all disasters, because somehow wars are perceived as a separate category of experience and a separate subject for study” (4). While I would agree that wars are not a natural disaster, I think that wars should still be considered at least a subcategory of disaster. Wars devastate the human population, infrastructure, marketplaces, and the order of everyday life just like natural disasters. Obviously wars are the result of human decisions, and not a natural occurrence outside of human control, but nevertheless they certainly constitute some type of disaster.