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
Henry McKiven Jr. studies the political impact that natural disasters have had throughout history in his article “The Political Construction of a Natural Disaster: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1853.” McKiven begins by discussing one of the more recent examples of a natural disaster being used to push a political agenda, Hurricane Katrina, and how the left pushed the idea that the storm revealed entrenched institutional racism. While Katrina is a well-known example of a national disaster being used in greater politics, McKiven argues that disasters have had this role throughout history, and he presents the example of the Yellow Fever epidemic in nineteenth century New Orleans.
The epidemic occurred at a time of political upheaval in New Orleans local political. In the 1850s a reform movement was developing, but it was split among those who saw immigrants as the root of political corruption and those who thought the nativist leaders were at fault, while both took issue with the Democrats in power. The Yellow Fever epidemic broke out during this strife, and the nativist reformers blamed it on the poor hygiene of immigrants while the more open-minded reformers recognized the greater hygienic problem and proposed solutions. The Democrats in power contended that it was likely to be contained in poor neighborhoods, as the affluent were exempt, but eventually the disease started to spread to all classes. The government at that point had to act, but it was too late and it hurt their public standing, as McKiven writes “the press shifted its attention from the habits of newcomers and poor German and Irish immigrants to the failure of past governments” (740). While the split in the reformist movements between nativist and the less bigoted continued, the Young America faction was able to make a difference in the end, and political reform did take place as a result of the disaster.
Tying this natural disaster together with Katrina is easy because they both took place in New Orleans, and there were those who were accused of racist beliefs in both cases. While McKiven makes a greater argument about the political impact of natural disasters, I found his argument effective, as he traced the developing political opinions during the course of the disaster as new knowledge was learned, and showed how it made direct connections to the developing conflict between the reformers and the Democrats in power. However, since McKiven was writing in 2007, his argument does not apply a more recent natural disaster in Super Storm Sandy. I may have just been oblivious to any conflicts that took place, but I saw the disaster as more bringing people together politically than creating conflict, especially with members of opposing parties President Obama and Governor Christie (before more recent embarrassments) working harmoniously.
Like Brandon, I also found the note in Steven Biel’s introduction that there were no wars discussed in his book interesting, especially because I read it after McKiven’s article. While McKiven’s article was technically not about a war, it was about a conflict that could be described as a political war, and the main point of the piece was that natural disasters were used in these political wars. While McKiven’s work does not relate specifically to the statement because Biel is talking about literal wars, I still found it interesting as in my mind while reading about the conflict in New Orleans, I thought of it as a kind of war.