I was recently reading “The Great Railroad Riots of 1887”,
as I am sure most of you have done as well, and I feel obliged to say that this
reading stood out –I mean compared to the previous stories in the course
packet. What I found to be of such
interest, in this narrative, was the poor job that the author did in exposing the
issues which led to the uproar of the citizens. Of course, I am certain that
this issue was not the effect of a humble mistake.
In the “Flour Riot of 1937”, the author makes it clear that
he is opposed to the riot and all of the destruction and lawlessness that comes
with the riot. But there are moments in
the narrative that help the reader understand and even try to justify the
actions of the rioters. The author constantly mentions the hunger and
frustrations that the high cost of living.
This is not the case in the railroads riots narrative. In the aforementioned,
the narrator spends dozens of pages describing a storm of death and anarchy; yet
he writes less than a paragraph presenting the conditions that led to the violent
actions of the insurgents. I must also point out that even though the author
wastes only a few milliseconds describing the rioters’ frustrations, he does
not hesitates in negating the validity of these conditions.
In my opinion, the author deliberately avoids adding any
content that might make the reader believe that the behavior of the insurgents
can be justified.
What do you think?
