Aashik Sekharan
Kate Wilkin 12/03/12
Review Response
In this paper I focused upon elaborating certain concepts (marginality, reverse
marginalization etcetera) before applying them to the 1991 Oakland firestorm case study.
Many grammar changes were required, primarily in my active-passive tense usage,
sentence structures and in elaborating upon certain claims made. Some repeated ideas
were eliminated, as I focused upon connecting my evolving claims to the paper’s thesis.
Further, I re-formatted my citations according to the MLA style and worked upon
improving the coherence of my ideas within the essay, especially improving the transitions
between paragraphs. More research helped me find useful information regarding Oakland’s
crime rates and education statistics, which I have conveniently used. Finally, I removed
some unnecessary quotes and looked to integrate the existing quotes to my claims in an
easily understandable manner. This included removing verbose examples from sources and
arguments unrelated to my thesis.
Hey, isn’t this reverse marginalization?
The Oakland hills firestorm of 1991 was a catastrophic natural disaster that struck
the residential developments of northern Oakland, consuming over 1000 acres of land,
destroying more than 3000 homes and claiming 25 lives. Despite the losses amounting to
nearly $1.5 billion, the social impact of the fire was significantly lesser than that of the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake. While “thousands of people were forced by the quake from
welfare hotels and dilapidated downtown buildings,” (Gross, 6) why did the people
displaced by the fire not require federal emergency grants or immediate housing support
from agencies such as the Red Cross? This is because the individuals occupying these fire-
affected areas were primarily high-income earners with better access to power and
resources. The vulnerability and social segregation of people from different economic classes
help mitigate the risks of a natural hazard to different degrees, as depicted by the communal,
