Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 42 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 59 reviews
on July 21, 2017
The singular optimism expressed in this book is remarkable, all the more because of its settings - chapters are set in some of the most devastating disasters in recent history. They include the earthquakes in San Francisco and Mexico City; London during the blitz, New York on 9/11 and New Orleans when Katrina hit.

She makes the contrarian point that masses of people actually behave quite well, with courage and altruism when disasters hit, but often times the elites panic, desperate to preserve or re instate the inequalities they have long fostered. Her point, and it is very well documented here, is that the "stiff upper lip" that the Brits showed during the Blitz, was not unique to British culture, but rather the norm in disasters. The author shows that we often exhibit a co operative "help each other out" mentality in the face of real disaster and wonders why we are not able to maintain it. But she also suggests that in some ways we do.

This is a broad book, that cites many different examples and may be fairly criticized for not following through on the aftermath of each one. I think such a choice would have required Solnit to focus entirely on one event. If you would prefer that approach try Rising Tide, John Barry's masterpiece of the 1927 Mississippi River.

Highly recommended.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 11, 2014
Rebecca Skolnit's book should become important to us, because we already seem to be working our way through what could well become a whole series of disasters and catastrophes (thanks to the author for clarifying the distinction).

It seems sociologists have been studying disasters for decades, and they've determined that in the face of sudden disaster, histories of specific events show that *the assumption that a collapse of the structures of authority and official response will result in mob behavior* is in terrible error -- it's a myth, an urban legend. Instead, it seems that our neighbors are much more likely to act altruistically and creatively. They are most likely to rapidly improvise ways to effect rescue, meet immediate needs and organize ad hoc encampments and communities that support survival and safety. Describing these grassroots social spaces and the negative reaction of authorities with a clear voice and generous dollops of humor and irony, Skolnit sees in these self-generated kitchens and aid stations a beautiful hint of what our lives could be, if left to our own devices. I love her voice -- and she's a riveting storyteller.

On the other hand, the elites have left behind a marked, bloody history of foolish decisions, well-armed panic and overreaction, fed by a dangerous mythology of looting mobs. Skolnit has confirmed something that should be obvious to those of us who remember the lies we were fed by the media, later disproved: there's a difference between "requisitioning needed supplies" in an emergency and "opportunistic theft", which constitutes looting. Time and again, it seems elites have deployed martial forces against a population struggling to survive, help not particularly on the way.

I loved reading the accounts of people's responses to Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 and Hurricane Sandy in comparison to events much earlier in the century, like The San Francisco Earthquake and the explosion of munitions in Halifax -- healthy, heroic parallels that are moving to read. It was good to see the heroism of women and underprivileged youngsters acknowledged. It was good to trace the philosophical underpinnings of our respective stances -- for and against 'the mob'. Initially interested in another of this author's titles, I HAD to read this one first, having been a first responder in years gone by. It spoke to my experience of bystanders' readiness to be of help -- or at least, to bear caring witness.

PS -- Presently, I've got a student who, until recently, was studying to be a cop. This goal was called into question by events in Ferguson and the on-going struggle along the border -- but even more by *the increasingly general militarization of the police*. This is something he doesn't want to be a part of, so he's changed his major to sociology, without particularly knowing where to go with it. I'm thinking of buying my student this book. Maybe it will help him clarify things.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 11, 2015
This book is about way more than what happens to people after disasters. It's a meditation on what people really want from their society and how periods of instability often reveal these truths. That when there's a disaster, power is often decentralized and individuals are free to improvise, to take agency in ways they may never have had to before. And the people in power experience "elite panic" which causes them to react in often counterproductive if not destructive ways. There are many beautiful messages in this book about human nature and its possiblilties. The only criticism I have is it can get repetitive. Some chapters are a bit long, particularly the one about New Orleans. But otherwise a great, transformative piece.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 26, 2014
This is a great book and Solnit is a VERY good writer. Her basic premise is spot on, and accurate as far as I have seen. Where I have to disagree with her and rate it at 2 stars is that she sees nothing beyond her agenda. It seems that she takes every example she encounters and turns it into a proof of her premise. She hammers and hammers her ideas, without any space to allow for the possibility that there may be people who have a different experience that falls outside her premise. Some people act badly during crisis. Most rise to the occasion. Some don't. I would like to see space for a variety of experience in this very important book. I gave it 2 stars because it is one sided, but it is an important take on the presumptions of people who plan for disaster and should be required reading at FEMA and Homeland Security. That'll be the day.

You should buy it if you think people are opportunists who will riot at any chance they get. It will open your eyes to an alternate truth. Just be prepared for one perspective only.
22 comments| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 5, 2017
I strongly recommend reading this. It's interesting and heartening. Lots of good stories in it. It really makes the point that in the aftermath of a disaster, the great majority of people help each other rather than revert to savagery as the myth tries to convince us.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 22, 2017
Openly points out (catalogues) human behavior, under conditions of disaster and human struggles.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 21, 2016
A well-written and researched bit of optimism, providing an emotional rollercoaster of sorts. Humans suck! Oh look these humans did not suck!
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 8, 2015
I was really impressed by this book. I'm not usually a fan of nonfiction but this book held my attention. I felt like I understood the world in a new way when I finished reading this. The writing style was a little unusual but still easy to understand. It has really forced me to consider our current political situations differently. It also brings a great focus on the negative effects of materialism.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 14, 2017
Rebecca Solnit is a combination of Joanna Macy and Joan Didion. We need that. She is a writer to be watched and listened to.
Hope In the Dark is the name of one of her other books, and isn't that exactly what we need right now?
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 11, 2009
Before I picked up this book, I didn't even know that there was an academic field called "disaster sociology." It turns out it goes back to William James himself, an eyewitness to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake who had the open-mindedness to look at how the people of San Francisco were affected by that disaster without projecting his own prejudices on it. He was astonished; people in disasters don't act anything like how we would expect them to. James' findings have been replicated by studying people in hundreds of historical and modern disasters, and from those studies disaster sociologists have come to some concrete, reliable scientific findings. Solnit believes very, very much that the rest of us need to know what the disaster sociologists know, because our mistaken expectations of what will happen during and immediately after disasters keep making things worse, not better, for the survivors. Before James Lee Witt took over FEMA, and ever since he left, it's been a standing joke that all disasters come in two phases: the disaster itself, and then the even worse disaster when FEMA arrives. This is not a coincidence; Witt knows things about disaster that almost nobody else in America knows, including other first responders, and it showed up in his priorities.

Solnit draws most of her examples from four disasters and their aftermaths, each recounted in detail: the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the 1917 explosion of an ammunition ship in Halifax harbor that destroyed the city, the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, and the World Trade Center attack on 9/11 of 2001. Other earthquakes, hurricanes, bombings, and other disasters are cited for comparison and contrast. And here's what she reports, based on extensive research by multiple scientists into the actual first-hand accounts of people who lived through disasters:

During a disaster, heroism is not particularly rare. Before a disaster, most people predict that they will panic, will react selfishly, will be cowards. It turns out not to be true. Most people don't run away from a disaster, they run towards it to see if they can help. Most people don't trample others to get away, they stop to pick each other up and help each other along. We keep being surprised by the fact that in an actual disaster, we are nearly all better people than we are in our daily lives. Disasters bring out the best in almost all of us. This is the book's single most important finding. It is extensively documented, and that's important, because most people will find it to be the most surprising.

Disaster survivors do not panic. Actual examples of people succumbing to helplessness and going catatonic, or of rushing around destructively in panic, are seldom if ever found. When people self-evacuate, they almost 100% consistently do so calmly, in an orderly fashion, and spontaneously cooperate, even at their own risk, to carry out the wounded and the disabled. Crowds of people have trampled to death the injured and the fallen in the past -- but not in disasters. And once evacuated, rather than succumbing to grief and shock, the overwhelming majority of them move purposefully about, driven by the overwhelming urge to find something useful to do. More of them do find something useful to do, within the first half a day or so, than you would imagine. Those who find something useful to do, however briefly or however little it is, consistently report feeling overcome by joy, not panic or fear or depression or any other madness.

Disaster survivors generally do not rape, loot, murder, or rob. Crime rates go down during disasters, not up. There are almost no documented examples, anywhere in human history, of people taking advantage of a disaster as an opportunity to commit crimes. Two specific examples of things that are called looting have been reported. First, if people need things from inside a home or a store to survive the first several days of a disaster and there is no one there to sell it to them or share it with them, they do take those things; but actual eyewitness accounts of disasters reveal that they are more likely to overpay, to leave money on the counter to cover what they took, than they are to steal. And secondly, there are accounts of people going into buildings that were about to be destroyed by fire or flood to take valuables out. Does it really count as stealing if someone takes a case of expensive cigars from a cigar store that is about to burn to the ground, or takes a flat screen TV out of a building that's about to go under water? Technically, yes, but that's the only extent there is of any documented "looting" in disasters.

Rich people, politicians, and soldiers, on the other hand, consistently do panic, loot, and murder, specifically out of fear that poor people will. This happens so consistently that disaster sociologists have a term for it, "elite panic." Because they fear that temporarily ungoverned people will rape, murder, loot, and rob they send in soldiers under orders to shoot to kill, and shoot to kill they do. Having been instructed to think of the survivors of the disaster as little better than animals, many soldiers abuse the survivors on little or no provocation. In particular, the US Army's reaction to disasters, foreign and domestic, turns out to be execrable, by contrast to the US Coast Guard, the only military unit reported on in the whole book that never succumbs to elite panic, no matter how much political pressure they are put under to do so. Why not? Because disasters are a big part of what the Coast Guard does for a living, which means that the Coast Guard's experienced officers are just about the only "elites" we have who have enough first-hand experience with disaster survivors to know, first hand, what the disaster sociologists had to find out through scientific research.

Even when they don't panic, "leaders" are mostly useless in a crisis. Each disaster is unique. In the first several days after a disaster, society's leaders, governors, rulers, and experts don't know who lived and who died. Among the living, they have no idea who has what skills that can be used. They don't know what resources are still available inside the disaster zone and they don't know which resources inside the zone were destroyed. They don't know what infrastructure still works and what infrastructure has failed. From roughly the 2nd hour of the disaster until at least the third day, maybe later, the only people who know these things are the disaster survivors themselves, and that's why during those first three days, ad hoc gatherings of random survivors do a better job of organizing relief kitchens, digging sanitary latrines, distributing any supplies that are available, and improvising temporary shelter than any top-down disaster response community can be.

If elite panic focuses on a single ethnic group, the result can be particularly disastrous slaughter. It doesn't have to be. San Franciscans stood up for the ethnic Chinese in 1906, and there was no slaughter. But Ray Nagin, in particular, gets singled out for the most personalized and individual hatred by Solnit; his palapable and vocal fear that his fellow black New Orleaners would descend into savagery, and his constant acceptance of and passing along of every rumor to that effect that he heard, resulted in the mobilization of multiple white racist militias who killed harmless black people who were just trying to evacuate or survive, who posed no threat to anyone, and so far the killers have gone unpunished; a similar disaster befell the Korean-ancestry residents of one Japanese city after their earthquake, when that city's local mayor, like Nagin, whipped up fear of and hatred towards them.

For many of society's outcasts and downtrodden, the disaster is not the worst day of their lives, it's the best. For the first 72 hours or so of a disaster, you don't have to worry about losing your job. You don't have to worry about whether or not you have any money. You don't have to worry about what you're going to do with the rest of your life. And a lot of people who've lived on the fringes of society, whether fringe religious groups or outcast Vietnam veterans or the homeless, are people who've accumulated the hard way an awful lot of the skills needed to cope with the sudden loss of everything. For example, after 9/11 one of the most important and popular places for mourners to gather was organized by a handful of rave promoters, assisted by a nearby Buddhist temple, and managed by a dozen or so local homeless guys who used to live in nearby alleys; in hurricane stricken southern Mississippi, one of the most important relief kitchens and disaster response centers was co-organized by a group of Christian missionaries and a group of Rainbow Family volunteers who happened to get there at about the same time. What all of those people felt was tremendous gratitude that someone finally needed the skills they happened to have.

Those are just the findings that jumped out at me the hardest, after a single reading, and Solnit is absolutely right that everybody in the world needs to hear these things, needs to know these things, needs to respond to disaster based on how people actually act, not how we're afraid they're going to act. This is a very, very important book ...

... even though, frankly, it keeps getting tiresome. It took me a long time to read this book, because of one tooth-grindingly awful flaw, and that's Solnit's personal politics. Solnit chooses to read these findings, about how people react in the first 72 hours after a city-wide disaster, as "proof" of her anarcho-communist politics, proof that what we ought to be doing is finding some way to eliminate government, eliminate money, eliminate private property, so we can all self-organize our daily ordinary lives with the joy, purpose, and improvisational brilliance that disaster survivors consistently show. I remain unconvinced, and probably so will you, which makes it increasingly wearying when, every 3 or 4 chapters, she stops talking about disasters and starts talking about some future utopia or about how we should be living our daily lives according to her. My advice is to do what I did, do what you do when anybody with an equally weak grasp on reality starts ranting about politics: smile and nod, and move along. Skim the political rants about the wonders of anarcho-communism until you get back to the meat of the book, the actual useful disaster sociology. It is absolutely worth reading past the dreary fantasy-based leftist anarchism to get all this juicy science-based sociology and psychology in one very readable place. If you aren't already susceptible to anarcho-communist utopian arguments, they're not going to infect you against your will like some disease, but the rest of the book will infect you with something you do need: the realization that in any disaster, with the exception of a handful of us who have clawed their way to the top, the rest of us are all, pretty nearly without exception, better, kinder, and more useful people than we would ever have imagined in advance.
0Comment| 61 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse