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 the introduction of the book American Disasters, Steven Biel heavily discusses the interpretations of disaster in history. He considers history to be a different kind of history because disasters occur in different forms. And depending on the era in which the disaster occurred, the responses that is given by people is different as a result of different values and the kind of disaster that struck. As mentioned by Peter in his analysis of Bergman, disaster history overlaps with both culture and social. Although the details of Biel and Bergman are not completely the same, they both follow the same idea that disaster history is a part of history that reflects the era in which it has occurred. To prove his point, Biel splits his analysis into four parts; capital, faith, community, and possibility. Each part focuses on the responses that different parts of society of the era gave to the natural response.

I would also like to discuss on the first few paragraphs that Biel made in his introduction. In them, he describes his participation in a documentary. In the documentary, the narrator’s choice of words were done with the intention of creating a sense of mystery and awe. This reminds me of my previous post, in which people use sources differently.