Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Maps -- Chapter 1: Bordering on Danger: An Introduction -- An Ocean of Risk -- Bordering on Danger -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Chapter 2: Revisiting Southeast Asian History with Geology: Some Demographic Consequences of a Dangerous Environment -- Southeast Asia Takes Shape in a Quiet Century -- Volcanic Disruptions to Population -- Estimating Longer-Term Effects -- Tsunamis of Early Modern Sumatra and Java -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
While 1880 is remembered in the Philippines for a great earthquake that struck Manila and 1882 for a highly destructive typhoon that caused untold damage, the everyday disasters that happen all too often across the archipelago are soon forgotten. The interest is in the 'big' event, and historiography rarely focuses on less spectacular occurrences. 1881 was one such year when 'nothing really much' happened. And yet, a closer examination of the archival record reveals 12 months of earthquake, volcanic eruption, typhoon, storm, flood, and fire that afflicted people across the archipelago. These everyday calamities are historically such an integral part of Filipinos' lives that they have shaped both their histories and their customs. More than the severity of the event, it is the frequency with which people have had to deal with calamity as an everyday event that has engendered socio-economic adaptation and cultural change. By examining the full range of disasters that people in the Philippines faced in 1881, this article examines the significant impact that geophysical and meteorological forces have had in influencing the daily lives of Filipinos in the past as they continue to do so in the present.
The notion of 'disaster justice', that is that governments have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable seems premised on a particular conception of the state that conforms to a Western liberal democratic model. Indeed, the failure of the state to protect its own is regarded not only as an injustice but as 'a breach of democracy's fundamental obligation to its citizens'. The state is seen as having a mandatory duty to shield people from physical harm through its laws and policies as well as to manage the social vulnerability consequent upon inequitable social systems. So what happens when societies are not democratic or free (or otherwise 'free') and where the state is premised upon a very different set of criteria? If injustice demands someone to blame, does justice require someone to absolve? By looking closely at the nature of hazards and people's expectations of the state and state actions in one region of southern Luzon around Mt Mayon, one of the most active volcanoes in the Philippines, this paper explores whether and how a sense of responsibility for vulnerable populations developed over time. It takes a comparative perspective through an examination of the colonial and contemporary state periods to discover what relevancy the concept of disaster justice has in different temporal and contextual situations.
AbstractUsing a detailed archival account of a typhoon‐induced flood, this paper examines Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as practised in a late nineteenth century provincial town in the Philippines. Culture is an important determinant when considering DRR for any community as the roots of its present‐day resilience as well as the causes of its vulnerabilities may lie in its history. The flood of 1887 and the account of the actions taken by the community in San Isidro challenge any assumptions about DRR in the past and hint at the origins of the vibrant civil society that is such a characteristic of Filipino society today.
ABSTRACTRobert Putnam's influential article 'Bowling alone: America's declining social capital' puts forward a number of possible factors to explain the decline of civil society in the USA. Many of these same forces are also at work in America's erstwhile colony in Asia, the Philippines, where almost the opposite outcome is true if one can measure such things as social capital by the activity of formal and informal associations and networks devoted to mutual assistance. Unlike Americans, however, Filipinos are exposed to a much higher degree of everyday risk. This article traces the evolution of mutual benefit associations and networks and suggests that it is in precisely those geographical regions most exposed to personal misfortune and community danger that they proliferate most readily.
'Katastrophen haben zwei historische Verlaufskurven, eine 'natürliche', insofern sie ein oder mehrere physikalische Risiken umfassen, und eine gesellschaftliche, insofern sie wesentlich kulturell bestimmt sind. 'Historisch' sind sie, da beide Faktoren mit der Zeit einen Wandel durchlaufen. Eine historische Verlaufskurve von 'Verwundbarkeit' zu kartieren, erlaubt Vergleiche darüber, wie geschickt unterschiedliche Gemeinschaften und Gesellschaften in der Vergangenheit mit allen Formen klimatischer und seismischer Gefahren umgingen. Eine vergleichende Sicht, die nicht von der Annahme ausgeht, dass die Herangehensweise einer Kultur der anderer überlegen sei, ermutigt dazu, nicht nur daraus zu lernen, was Menschen vormals taten, sondern auch aus dem, was heute andere tun - insbesondere, wie gegenwärtige nicht-westliche Gesellschaften mit der Vorbereitung auf Katastrophen, der Schadensminderung und dem Prozess der Wiederherstellung umgehen. Und schließlich ermutigt uns der Vergleich von Verwundbarkeit auch, Katastrophen als mehr als bloß kurzfristig zerstörerische Ereignisse zu verstehen, nämlich auch als längerfristig verändernde Handlungskraft.' (Autorenreferat)
As an historian whose interests lie in both contemporary disaster practice as well the historical roots of vulnerability, I have become increasingly intrigued by the manner in which the proponents of these two 'fields' approach the question of time in relation to disasters. Needless to say these actors regard it very differently. Social scientists (and here I include mainly sociologists, anthropologists and human geographers) largely pay lip service to its importance, at best mentioning its relevance en passant but giving historical analysis and specific historical example little real consideration in the greater scheme of things. At the same time, though, they place inordinate emphasis on the importance of 'process' as the basis upon which their understanding of what turns a natural hazard into a disaster depends. The concept of vulnerability is proposed as the key to understanding how social systems generate unequal exposure to risk by making some people more prone to disaster than others, a condition that is largely a function of the power relations operative in each society (Cannon 1994:14–15, 19; Wisner 1993:131–133). Vulnerability to historians, on the other hand, is not even really a conceptual term and, when used at all, usually indicates a state of being not a condition derivative of historical processes. Above all, disasters are primarily 'events' caused by a combination of seismological, meteorological or epidemiological agents (occasionally war is seen in this context as well)2that have certain detrimental physical and socioeconomic consequences. At their most extreme, they may even cause the downfall of societies. However, they are rarely integrated into any wider theoretical perspective (Ambraseys 1971; Landsberg 1980). Though both social scientists and historians may talk about disasters, they are not necessarily talking about the same thing: the one sees disasters as primarily a historical processes (or processes set within recent temporal parameters), the other as non-sequential historical events. This is unfortunate because primarily disasters are both historical processes and sequential events. If this assertion sounds rather convoluted, I trust the following discussion will make the distinction somewhat clearer though no amount of clarification is really sufficient to adequately address this question. Instead, I intend what I say more as 'a line of thinking in progress' than 'a work in progress'.
The social construction of hazard is a matter of considerable moment to those engaged in disaster preparedness, management and relief. All too often, insufficient recognition is accorded to the manner in which people's actions are influenced by their cultural interpretation of what they are experiencing. Behaviours that appear inappropriate or illogical to external agency or relief workers may be entirely consistent and rational actions when understood in the context of the operating schema of the individuals experiencing such phenomena.
