Natural Disaster – American Environments to 1893

April 7, 2014

Does Bergman Have It Wrong?

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

Jonathan Bergman’s essay speaks to what Ted Steinberg does in his Acts of God. Bergman states, “With the advent of environmental studies, disasters have become something of a ‘growth field in American history.’ Armed with novel theories of disaster, scholars have set out to examine urban life, race, class, politics, and governmental culture through a variety of socially dislocating events” (938). Using disaster studies as a lens for studying traditional topics serves to boost both environmental history and the field of history as a whole. Bergman has his doubts about the the manner in which disaster studies has taken (and taking). He is skeptical of disaster studies and its future. While I think I understand his perspective, having read Acts of God and other environmental works, I must call him out and suggest he re-think his argument. I think disaster is a useful category for historical analysis. Disaster can allow for a nuanced analysis of a period that and using other categories of analysis can also allow for a more nuanced interpretation of the events before, during, and after the disaster.

The essay I chose for this week, “Fighting the Hessian Fly: American and British Responses to Insect Invasion, 1776-1789,” serves as a proper contribution to the environmental/disaster studies field. When read after Bergman’s essay, one can understand how Bergman “got it wrong.” Philip J. Pauly’s states in his essay, “Looking beyond the eighteenth century, I suggest that the Hessian fly provides a useful starting point for examining how nationalism–involving issues of both political sovereignty and, more diffusely, xenophobia–has influenced the science of policy of biological invasion (486). Yes, it is possible for analyses to get carried away with other categories of analysis and thus take away from telling the story of the disaster, but I think it is possible to tell both at the same time. As Ian reminded us last week in our discussion of Chicago, “. . .they also altered their environment by flooding and freezing a region that would not have faced these conditions without human alteration.” Cronon’s analysis would have been much stronger if he had added commentary on this matter (regardless of the fact that this might not have been his primary purpose).

After completing the readings for this week I thought a lot about language. Are actually doing these events justice by calling them “natural disasters.” This phrase carries a negative connotation, so how does one rid that from the phrase without changing the name or replacing it with something that no one will recognize? Instead is it suitable to call them “natural events”? Other words with just as negative connotations are brought into the conversation as well. With these words and negative connotations come negative interpretations of the events and nature. Nature is made out to be the bad force. Now, I am not suggesting that Steinberg does this in his work, not at all. He makes this obvious. We as readers know exactly with whom the fault stands, but could this be an inadvertent (and most likely subtle) component that is in some ways difficult to separate? Are these concerns the at crux of Bergman’s struggle and argument?

April 6, 2014

Representations of Disasters

I read the article called “Distant Disasters, Local Fears: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Revolution, and Passion in The Atlantic Monthly, 1880-84″ by Sheila Hones. In it, Hones draws on essays about natural disasters, essays about social problems that included references to natural disasters, and fiction pieces that used natural disasters as part of the plot (173). From reading other blog posts, it seems that this article is unique. Instead of writing about Gilded Age disasters themselves, Hones writes about how authors published in The Atlantic during the period represented disasters in their stories and reporting (170). “Distant disasters thus provide the textual framework for an exploration of local anxieties,” Hones argues, and proceeds to explain how authors did this.

First, Hones demonstrates the connection between the “social atmosphere” and the attitude toward disasters of educated Bostonians during the 1880s: “the large natural world is meaningful and ordered while the local social world is prone at any particular moment to turmoil” (172-173). Next, authors created what Hones calls “narrative distance” between the upper-class writers and readership of The Atlantic and the disasters experienced far away, such as the eruption of Krakatoa (175). Finally, disasters were understood to be, though destructive, also creative of new life. In disasters, authors found a way to understand their local concerns about social change as possibly a good thing in the end. Hones says the example of the volcano is “a potent symbol for a conservative community proudly finding its roots in revolution” (190-191). The United States, then, was a volcano: eruptive democracy led to eventual stability. This corresponds to Brandon’s post about how disasters might/might not be a good thing. But the fact that they might even be considered a good thing is interesting in itself.

Hones has interesting things to say about the locale of disasters. One author wrote about the Mississippi River floods in The Atlantic. The author showed that the natural disaster threatened America’s “self-regulation at the national level” (187). With the Civil War recently concluded, the author saw the possibility of local governments responding to the disaster instead of the federal government and the author worried that it would “create the ‘gravest political dangers'” (187). This made me think about how natural disasters are also national disasters. In the moment of a natural disaster, a local community is unable to respond. It seems that communities outside of the one destroyed must respond if any rebuilding/assistance can occur. This is the case, at least, where humans have built second nature on top of first nature. If humans are living in first nature, then they can move somewhere else, right?

Some thoughts from the other readings:

In Steven Biel’s introduction, he states, “catastrophic disturbances of routine actually tell us a great deal about the ‘normal’ workings of culture, society, and politics” (5). This makes sense, but it also makes me wonder if a disaster can be a historical event? Because who are the actors? Can a disaster be an actor in the same way that nature can?

Also, in the overview article by Jonathan Bergman, he cites Matthew Mulcahy, who writes, “‘[d]isasters become disasters only when natural forces meet human ones'” (936), which means that disasters need humans (and to an extent, second nature) present in order to actually be a disaster. I think this is interesting and it reminds me of Crosby’s broad view of changes in nature in Ecological Imperialism. If a disaster occurred in an uninhabited place, could we really call it a disaster?

April 6, 2014

Natural Disasters and the Dominance of Capitalism

I had never previously thought of natural disasters as a way through which to analyze culture, politics, and economy. However, Biel’s introduction to American Disasters – especially his explanation of disasters being able to teach us about the “normal” workings of American society – convinced me of the utility of looking at disasters to interpret the arcs of American culture (5). I saw these “complex cultural resonances” clearly in Patricia Bixel’s “It Must Be Made Safe” (6).

Bixel’s “It Must Be Made Safe” tells the history of the aftermath of the devastating hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas in September 1900. Deaths were estimated between 6,000 and 8,000 people following the storm, and the damage inflicted upon the port city was assessed at $30 million (223). The determination of the residents of Galveston never to experience this again is where I first saw an example of the cultural resonances introduced by Biel. After the local government failed to secure the restoration of utilities to the city, many people saw the need to restructure the municipal government. This led to the passage of a new bill allowing two of the commissioners of Galveston to be elected by the populace, and three commissioners to be appointed by the governor (230). What I found interesting about this purge of the old government was that while Galvestonians had perceived their officials as corrupt for over a decade, it took a natural disaster to induce change (228). While the natural disaster destroyed much of the city, it also provided a pseudo-purification or purge of the iniquities of Galveston. In a way, the storm represented an opportunity for a new beginning. Most people thought the new government was more in tune to the interests of the people (230). However, I think those “people” who were able to capitalize on the revival provided by the flood were clearly those who held the most capital, and I think that is seen in the economic aftermath of the 1900 hurricane.

While the local government before the hurricane was criticized for its “self-interested” nature, the appointment of commissioners following the passage of the new city charter in Galveston demonstrated that not much had changed. These officials held substantial influence in politics and business, and were appointed on their ability to acquire money from potential lenders and expedite the construction of a sea wall in Galveston (235). Though the reformation of government and construction of the sea wall were said to promote the restoration of Galveston and improve the safety of its people, the reconstruction of the city was driven almost solely by a desire to remain the most important port city on the Gulf Coast (224). Many of the reconstruction efforts were aimed at restoring beaches for tourism (235). This reflects much of what we have been discussing in the past few weeks of class as the manipulation of nature can be traced by the flows of capital and interests of capitalists throughout Galveston.

Ironically, these efforts only led to the destruction of Galveston’s natural environment. Filling projects led to the destruction of many trees and plants because they were trapped under dredge material being used to raise the grade of the island (238). Construction of the sea wall led to the erosion of other Gulf Coast beaches (241). I think these examples lend themselves to supporting Manish’s point that many politicians and businessmen have been stubborn and reluctant to adapt to the threats of nature. To apply this theory to my example, moving the population and businesses of Galveston off the island and to a more suitable coast location were way too high for any businessmen or politicians to even seriously consider. This mindset, like Manish indicates, has “expanded beyond the check that nature institutes on society.” The profits promised by trying to manipulate nature were too desirable to leave. It is remarkable that even after being stricken and humbled by the power of natural disasters like the 1900 Galveston hurricane, mankind still assumes the conviction that nature is an entity to be conquered.

April 6, 2014

New Jersey and the Disasters that Devastate the Land

James K. Mitchell’s essay “American Disasters during the Twentieth Century: The Case of New Jersey” is an intriguing piece which analyzes a number of different types of natural disasters within the state. Throughout the piece, Mitchell argues that “natural disasters” are a result of humans interacting with dangerous environments, leading to the destruction that ensues (327). At the start of the piece, I was a little skeptical about this idea, but by the end, Mitchell has swayed my opinion through his specific examples.

One example that Mitchell drew heavily on, which inevitably influenced my decision to conform to his school of thought, was his description of fires within New Jersey. Though New Jersey’s climate is not the most ideal for the spread of a wildfire, the dryness in the environment that occurs during the summer months does create favorable conditions for this type of disaster. Even so, it still takes a spark to create the fire in the first place, which Mitchell attributes specifically to human hand. Whether it was locomotives creating sparks with the tracks which sparked a flame or a person purposefully lighting something on fire, Mitchell attributes a majority of wildfires in New Jersey during the 20^th century to humans (340-341). Due to humans, for a lack of better term, “playing with fire” in a region that tends to get pretty dry; they sparked the flames which created the massive devastation that we attribute to natural disasters. In this manner, it was humanity’s choice of acting in a hostile environment which created these disasters, which supports Mitchell’s argument regarding natural disasters.

Along with his claims about wildfires, Mitchell also analyzes humanity’s hand within droughts as well. Being from upstate New York and formerly living close to the New Jersey border, it was a little shocking at first to read about New Jersey suffering from droughts. Yet, after some thought on the matter, I realized that I was conflating my definition of a drought to a much larger scale, like something one might face in Arizona. After reassessing this definition, I noted that New York went through similar dry spells during the summer months, often resulting in the grass withering and browning. With this similar type of region in New Jersey, Mitchell noted that most registered droughts were a result of human use of the water supply (347). Again, within a region that tends to get dry, by humans using the water supply for x amount of things, like swimming pools, watering their lawn, etc., they create their own disaster through their actions. In a region that has a more abundant water supply, this type of natural disaster would be less likely, but because humans chose to inhabit this environment they are left to deal with the repercussions.

Manish makes some incredibly interesting comments about the lack of respect for nature by the people of Southern of California. Initially I was shocked to read his post about these people turning a blind eye to nature’s supremacy, instead creating their infrastructure with little concern to environmental threats. However, this mindset is something we have witnessed throughout our course with numerous people believing they could overcome nature. For example, our discussion on the Union General trying to shape the Mississippi and failing is a perfect portrayal of humanity continually believing themselves above nature’s power. Yet, with the devastation caused by natural disasters all over the country, we are reminded that humanity is simply another part of the ecosystem, with nature’s power reigning above all. Recognizing our place under nature’s power is important though for humanity’s growth in technology. As Manish references in his post, other people respond to natural disasters by improving their society in terms of safety and various forms of technology. In a backwards manner, one can almost view natural disasters as a good thing for society, as it sparks ongoing innovation.