Lessons from the past? The '06 San Francisco earthquake rebuilding.

[Wordie]

I'm posting this just as a sort of general interest sort of thing. It's the transcript of an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, April 25, 1906.

Observe in the article: 1. the suggestion regarding wages; 2. the treatment of minorities; 3. how many of those identified overtly as "capitalists" in this article clearly are viewing this as an opportunity. (I don't know that is a necessarily bad thing, as in order to rebuild, there HAS to be capital, but it is interesting.) There may be other parallels as well.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906.2/burnham.html


Edited to add:
For history buffs, here's a site with detailed info on the SF quake and fire. They keep saying in the media and elsewhere that NO was the largest natural disaster ever to hit the U.S., and I'm sure that's true, but the SF quake and fire must be a close second. I plan to browse this site to see if there are other lessons in there.

http://www.nps.gov/prsf/history/1906eq/index.htm

[valerief]

1. The last paragraph parallels with military control

***The military authorities returned to the Harbor Commissioners yesterday morning complete control over the docks, wharves and piers of the water front. In accordance with the wish of the military authorities, however, no ship will be allowed to dock for the present except if it is bringing food supplies.***

However, NO's situation was that the military didn't allow food and supplies in.

[Wordie]

2. Yes, that's true. I wonder why the authorities blocked ships? n/t

[1932]

7. Perhaps allocation of resources.

There were probably ships backed up in the harbor with goods they needed to unload so they could move on to their next jobs.

The shipping lines owners wouldn't want to have their entire business on hold because they couldn't get their ships back from San Francisco. (And they wouldn't want to have to be responsible for storage in another port -- they were paid to deliver to S.F. and that's what they wanted to do.)

The authorities wouldn't have wanted all these ships to occupying docks and stacking up their cargos unless their cargo was stuff that the people of S.F. could use.

Just a guess.

[Wordie]

8. Yes, that makes sense. Could be a fear of looting too; ships could take

things OUT of the city. Although I don't know if looting occurred back then.

[1932]

9. I think shipping companies were relatively professional in 1906

and not run by pirates. I'm doubt they would have engaged in organized looting. They were probably much more interested in unloading, say, the oranges from LA so that they could pick up the shipment to Portland where they would trade it for the lumber to take up to Vancouver, or whatever.

[Wordie]

10. I didn't mean to imply that the shipping companies themselves would...

but others could take things out of the city on the ships, or arrange to have...ok, stupid idea. I was just musing, I guess.

[Syncronaut Seven]

4. Because the critical part of any battle is cutting supply lines

It only makes sense in this context. Bushcos intent was to starve them out

[valerief]

5. You are absolutely correct.

[Wordie]

6. I think there is an awful lot of what went on in NO that we haven't heard.

Just a sense I have. Every so often you get a glimpse...an article about authorities giving "shoot to kill" orders, things of that nature. I wonder if we will really ever get a clear picture of what those first several days were like.

Edited to add: I don't know about the idea of any of the authorities deliberately starving the residents out. I don't WANT to believe that, but there were comments I heard attributed to various authorities, that lend credence to it. As I said earlier, I have a feeling that there is an awful lot we just will never know.

[Syncronaut Seven]

3. .

.