“My argument is not simply that natural disasters bear a strong human component, but that those in power (politicians; federal, state, and city policymakers; and corporate leaders) have tended to view these events as purely natural in an effort to justify a set of responses that has proved both environmentally unsound, and socially, if not morally, bankrupt” (xiv)
“We can’t afford to live anywhere else but down here where it floods. It’s always the poor people that get screwed” (xix); “forces that compel people to live in risky environments” (xxi)
“the historically contingent nature of these phenomena and the question of human complicity” (xx)
disasters presented as “primarily accidents–unexpected, unpredictable happenings that are the price of doing business on this planet” are “seen as freak events.” “As a result, no one can be held accountable for them” (xxi); “the emphasis has been on making nature the victim” (xxv) VERSUS “In truth . . . natural calamities frequently do not just happen; they are produced through a chain of human choices and natural occurrences . . .” (xxi); “our own role as architects of destruction” (xxv)
APPLY THESE IDEAS TO THE CASE STUDIES REGARDING RACE, ETHNICITY, AND CLASS. EVIDENCE IN EVERY ESSAY FOCUSES ON THEM.
http://disasters.ferrellhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/week-4-September-14-Monday.pdf
