1906 Earthquake Research Paper

According to the writers of Encyclopedia Britannica, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and fire caused 28,000 buildings to be destroyed, causing $350,000,000 in damage. This earthquake was one of the most devastating earthquakes ever. There are many views on this earthquake, and even some footage of it. The earthquake caused the fire, which was even more devastating than the earthquake itself, but they both still did a substantial amount of damage. Over 3000 people were killed, 250,000 left homeless, and the survivors camped in Golden Gate Park or Dunes West, and some fled to neighboring towns. (Encyclopedia Britannica). The eyewitness accounts “Comprehending the Calamity” by Emma Burke and “The Horrific Wreck of the City” by Fred Hewitt are both about the 1906 San

Francisco Earthquake and both have different accounts on during the earthquake and the aftermath. Fred Hewitt is pessimistic, but Emma Burke is optimistic.
Both stories, “Horrific Wreck of the City,” and “Comprehending the Calamity,” show in many ways that the authors are religious, and that they are both were scared about the earthquake and the people who died or were injured.

On page 1 of “Horrific Wreck of the City”, it says “That second upheaval was gut wrenching. It made me think of the loved ones across the country. It turned my stomach, gave me a heartache that I will never forget and caused me to sink upon my knees and pray to the Almighty God that me and mine should escape the awful fate I knew was coming to so many thousands.” Similarly in “Comprehending the Calamity,” “The all-prevailing cheerfulness and helpfulness were encouraging signs of our progress in practicing the golden rule, and humanity’s struggle upward toward the example of our Savior.” (page 4) This evidence means that the two writers were religious because they were both talking about God and their Savior. This evidence supports my compare topic point because use if they weren’t religious, they would think that is was the earth’s plates colliding, rather than God being angry at mankind and causing an earthquake. On page 1 of “Horrific Wreck of the City,” “...that me and mine should

escape the awful fate I knew was coming to so many thousands.” Similarly in “Comprehending the Calamity,” “I saw a mother and daughter sitting in the next nook, into which four doors from flats opened. They were weary, and the girl almost fainting. Everything they had was burned, and they had had nothing to eat all day, I told them they could go up in our flat and sleep. I went upstairs and found two old comforters, and made them a bed.” (page 2) This evidence means that the two writers were scared for people who died, were injured, or lost everything because they both were talking about peoples’ fate from the earthquake and felt bad for the people who had lost everything. This evidence shows that both people had different views, but had a similar point in thinking. This evidence supports my compare point because it says that both of the writers witnessed and thought about all of the people who wouldn’t survive the earthquake. Both authors thought similarly of the earthquake in ways like the fact that they were both religious and that they were both scared and had compassion for people who died, got badly injured, or lost everything in the disaster.

Both stories, “Horrific Wreck of the City,” and “Comprehending the Calamity,” show in many ways that the authors think differently of the earthquake, such as Fred Hewitt thinking that it was the worst epidemic in human history, Emma Burke thinking that it brought people together and wasn’t that bad, and how Fred Hewitt only wrote about what happened during the earthquake and how Emma Burke wrote less about what happened during the earthquake, and more about what happened after the earthquake. On page 2 of “Horrific Wreck of the City,” Fred Hewitt states, “All humanity within eyesight was suffering. No one knew which way to turn, when on all sides of them destruction stared them in the very eye. A number of slight tremors followed the first seven series of shocks. As each came in term fearful agony spread over the countenances of the afflicted ones. Terror stamped its mark in every face.” This evidence means that Fred Hewitt was explaining how terrifired the people who were on the streets, and how terrible everyone thought it was. On page 2 of “Comprehendin the Calamity,” Emma Burke says, “Everything they had was burned, and they had had nothing to eat all day, I told them they could go up in our flat and sleep. I went upstairs and found two old comforters, and made them a bed. I gave them food, and hastened to the Park through the gathering twilight...” This evidence means that Emma Burke was a fortunate person who didn’t lose anything, and she was giving everything to other people who were less fortunate. On page 1 of “Horrific Wreck of the City,” Fred Hewitt writes, “No story will ever be written that will tell the awfulness of the thirty-hours following the terrible earthquake.” This shows that he will try to write about only the 30 hours following the earthquake, and not about what it was like after the 30 hours following the earthquake. Whereas in “Comprehending the Calamity,” on page 4, Emma Burke writes, “It rained a little the fourth night.” This evidence means that she wrote all the way to the fourth night following the earthquake, whereas Fred Hewitt only wrote about the 30 hours following the earthquake. These are some of the main ways that Fred Hewitt in his short story, “Horrific Wreck of the City,” and Emma burke in her short story, “Comprehending the Calamity” thought differently about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.

In conclusion, the short stories, “Horrific Wreck of the City,” by Fred Hewitt, and “Comprehending the Calamity,” by Emma Burke both think similarly and differently about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Fred Hewitt and Emma Burke think differently about