Search

This article discusses several disasters that resulted in major loss of human life in the US; it examines the similarities and differences between them, and how they've evolved through the years. The first disaster that was discussed was the burning of the US Capitol Building in 1814. The article then moves on to discuss the Hague Street boiler explosion and building collapse in New York in 1850, the Iroquois Theater FIre in Chicago in 1903, and finally, the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. This article points out that in the first two investigations, there was a lot of finger pointing that took place when the government (both federal and local) and private individuals investigated the aftermath. Moving into investigating the more recent two incidents, individuals and organizations may have finger-pointed, but they also conducted thorough investigations that resulted in recommendations for change to save life and property in the future.

It was difficult to figure where this article had been referenced or discussed. It was included in a volume of History and Technology, so it would have been distributed along with the rest of the articles in the book. On "researchgate.net" it did not list anyone who had cited it, so my assumption is that it is not heavily referred to outside of this class.

Scott Knowles is the Head of the Department of History at Drexel University in Pennsylvania. He specializes in the history of technology, disaster, and public policy. He has a number of other publications that are relevant to the DSTS Network including a book, The Disaster Experts: Mastering Risk in Modern America, and co-authored "Critical Studies in Risk and Disaster, and a volume on the Fukushima disasters. He is not professionally situated among emergency responders; however, he does conduct research on the subject.

This article discusses emergency response in the historical incidents and described why emergency responders had difficulty rescuing victims and why there were so many fatalities. The article did not, however, discuss the details of the emergency response, it focused much more on how the situation happened and the political and social aftermath.

There was a great deal of primary sourcing involved in producing this report. Additionally, the author used other reports and historical papers to build summaries and historical perspectives in this article.

"The 'disaster investigation,' ... actually emerges as a hard-fought contest to define the moment in politics and society, in technology and culture." (page 1).

"[Answers about the World Trade Center] were not reassuring, or especially enlightening answers." (page 16)

"... so many players appeared guildty that none could be singled out for punishment." (page 16)

I looked into each of the disasters mentioned in the article to find out more about them. I had not heard of the theater fire or boiler explosion before, and found those very interesting.

The article shows a number of responses historically that show competition among people or organizations who are conducting inquiries. The article provides a great deal of information and primary-source testimony that described the responses to various incidents. This testimony provided insight into how much people fought over who was to blame after disasters, and that people's rhetoric when discussing that has not changed greatly over time. This article supported its argument by including facts spread over the three other disasters mentioned.

As mentioned in an earlier annotation, the bibliography shows a great deal of primary and secondary sources as well as other analyses, showing that this article was produced like many other historical research peices - the author uses historical perspective to frame a period in the reader's mind, which allows them to further argue their point.