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

In Jonathan Bergman’s article Disaster: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis he explains the field of disaster history as being very divise and not totally formed into a cohesive study yet.  He writes about the history of the subject how it went from disasters being events ordained from a  deity to more rectly them being recognized as social events.  He discusses about how historians, although they don’t believe they were sent by deities, they still argue about if they should be categorized as natural events or events that are apart of culture and social history.  Bergman comes to the conclusion that it is most likely a combination of both and should be looked from a natural and human viewpoint to totally understand them. I agree with Bergman,  and to me this argument reminds me of the old saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around, does it make a sound?” If a hurricane hits an unpopulated area of the world, is it still such a disaster? If a totally man created event like a mass shooting or war happens, is it a disaster? I think there isn’t a concrete answer for either statement, but it is discussing the argument that was brought up in Koppes’ article on the Dust Bowl summed up by  saying that Worster (a person Koppes brought into the argument) believed the Dust Bowl to be a creation of humans brought about by their greed. Later Cunfer would write a piece saying that the dust bowl would have naturally happened regardless of man, that it was an event solely of nature. I think one thing that is important in both of these pieces is for each historian to define exactly what a disaster is and offer arguments for why their interpretation is the most correct, because it’s obvious that humans have some influence on nature as nature has an influence on humans. There should be arguments made for how much of the natural world has an influence and how much of the human world has an influence.