While reading the third part of City of Ambition, the thing that sparked my interest was La Guardia’s campaign for Roosevelt against Willkie. Until this point, La Guardia has been portrayed as a just and fair politician, that is looking out for his constituents. However, in this campaign he becomes extremely confrontational, as he looks for any opportunity to besmirch the public’s view of Willkie. From depicting him as someone who is an agent of big businesses and only looking out for those with capital, to making it a class struggle between the employers and employees, La Guardia would stop at nothing to taint any positive views of Willkie. This is slightly surprising coming from the man who was all about a decent municipal government, unlike Tammany Hall, earlier in the thirties. This seemingly small campaign for Roosevelt is actually a major factor in La Guardia’s next campaign for mayor, as many reformers who had supported him in the past, lost all faith in him as a decent politician.

While reading the second part of City of Ambition which discusses the New Deal, I was surprised by the stubbornness of President Roosevelt. From pushing off dealing with unemployment, to constantly pushing for his own reform of decentralization, to his lack of interest in the seemingly sound idea of private subsidiaries, he is constantly ignoring what seems like common sense, to hold on to his principles. This surprised me as I had always viewed FDR’s ability to lead the nation out of the Great Depression as a result of his openness to ideas and more liberal views. However, after looking back I realized this stubbornness is actually what got him the Presidency in the first place. In truth it is not stubbornness it is actually persistence. This persistence is what allowed FDR to get through his own personal hardship with polio as well as the ensuing rough time getting back into politics. Without it, he might never have made a presidential run and be content with the being governor of New York. But this persistence and strong belief in his own reforms is what pushed him on and got him to the place he was in. After realizing this, it made a lot more sense why FDR was so persistent (not stubborn) about doing things his own way.

While reading City of Ambition by Mason B. Williams I came to a new understanding of the backgrounds of one of the U.S.’s greatest presidents F.D.R. and one of N.Y.C.’s most noted mayors Fiorello La Guardia. Although I had previously known of their difference of class, I had never heard of a difference in their motives behind their reform policies. Despite both being inspired by the Progressive movement their initial motives behind wanting social reform were vastly different. La Guardia coming from a working class immigrant family had his own personal experiences with the corruption of government and therefore felt a responsibility to fix that issue. Roosevelt’s motives where both less personal and altruistic. Coming from an upper-class New York family, he felt he had an obligation to society to improve the lower class. At first glance, this seems like a fairly altruistic reason to create social reform. However, as Williams continues to describe Roosevelt, it is clear that it was more about finding social acceptance and recognition amongst the upper-class than it was about helping those less fortunate than he was. This information now made see that even the great F.D.R. was still mortal.

One thing I found refreshing about Bread Givers, by Anzia Yezierska, is its personal spin on understanding the immigrant way of life in the early twentieth century. After reading the two, dry, fact- based, historical books on NYC at the turn of the twentieth century; this novel made the ideas expressed in those books more real. From the beginning you already start to feel for young Sara as she describes her family’s financial struggles, and how they affect the mood of the house. It gives over a more visual and real understanding of the poverty of the immigrants spoken about in All the Nations Under Heaven. Bread Givers also gave me a better understanding of what made the Lower East Side, a place of attraction for those who were looking to create a new Bohemian neighborhood in American Moderns.

With all that being said, one thing that sparked my interest about Bread Givers is the delusions of Sara’s father, Reb Smolinsky. It seems to that it should be obvious to any sane person that Reb Smolinsky’s actions are completely immoral and wrong. However, he is so caught up in his religious beliefs that he can’t see it. He believes that he is doing what God wants and therefore, what human has right to question. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this is an exaggeration of the facts. It is hard for me to believe that anyone could be so blind as Reb Smolinsky is when it comes to his family and money. Although I’m sure there must have been many cultural differences that led to friction between immigrant parents and their Americanized children, it is hard to believe such a case as this.

In conclusion, I felt that this book did a good job of bringing to light the personal day to day struggles of immigrants at the turn of the century, especially those of their Americanized children. However, I believe that Yezierska might have exaggerated the story a little too much in trying to get this feeling across.

After reading Christine Stansell’s “ American Moderns”, I now have a much better understanding of what made “The Village” what it is today. Previously, I had always viewed the start of Bohemian society in New York City as a group of people with radical ideas about sexual orientation, “free love,” anarchism, and many other things that pushed society’s limits. Although this idea was confirmed in Stansell’s work, it also showed that there was more to its beginnings than I had realized. From the beginning Stansell points out that one of the leaders in the early stages of the Bohemian society was Lincoln Steffens, the famous muckraker. Stansell goes on to explain how one of the major early objectives of the Bohemian society was to bring out and improve the rough edges of the cities. One area that was of extreme focus was the Lower East Side, known for being the ghetto of Jewish immigrants in New York City.

This is just the start of the influence that Jews would have on Bohemian society and Greenwich Village. As a Jew myself, (and one that has read a decent, though not extensive amount on Jewish History from the 20^th century on) this was quite a shock to me. I had known that many of the Jews that had come over from Eastern Europe and especially Russia towards the end of the 19^th century were socialists or anarchists. However, I did not comprehend how this would affect the tide of radicals blossoming in N.Y.C. at the time. As Stansell points out, many of these early Bohemian writers and thinkers would spend a lot of time in the Yiddish speaking restaurants and coffeehouses throughout the Lower East Side. Many of these Yiddish speaking Europeans had spent copious amounts of time in their home countries developing their ideas on socialism or anarchism. This made these shops the “go-to” place to hear more about these ideologies in early 20^th century America. The Jewish contribution didn’t stop there. As the Ferrer Center came onto the scene, there was now a way for immigrants to be welcomed and recognized in Bohemian society. The most prominent of these immigrant groups were the Jews. Nonetheless, possibly the greatest Jewish contribution to this culture was Emma Goldman. Taking up a whole chapter in Stansell’s book and appearing in many other places throughout the book, Goldman’s contributions are almost immeasurable. From being “ The face of Bohemian Greenwich Village” to the face of the “New Woman,” Goldman was at the forefront of this movement. Although she didn’t identify with the classical Jewish beliefs, she always stuck to her roots as being a secular, Americanized Jew. This alone was enough to break certain barriers of anti-Semitism that had held Jews out of the Bohemian society, until that time. This seemingly small point, really changed my understanding of the times, as it gave a new face to this movement that I had never seen before.

While reading “Privatization of Risk,” by Craig Calhoun, there were a few things that stood out to me. The first and most personal is the effect privatization of risk has had on universities. It is unfortunate that the greed of the American Government has led to less funding for some of their greatest public universities. Being a student here at Brooklyn, it concerns me that most of the school’s costs is no longer covered by the government. Despite the fact that my tuition is being paid by Macaulay, who is to say that my fees won’t exponentially increase over the next few years if the government continues to cut back. Another thing that stood out to me was how socialist the article sounded. Although I agree that part of the social construct of government is to take on responsibility of risk for the masses, we are still a country based on capitalism.  There are going to be different levels of risk and ensuing damage based on one’s wealth, but it is the economic ability to attain wealth, that makes this country so great. I’m not saying that the article doesn’t raise some valid points such as the relief and aid to New Orleans after a natural disaster. However, the article’s arguments pertaining to government services such as pensions, Medicare and Social Security are unfounded. Part of this country’s capitalist foundation is the idea of survival of the fittest, and it is not the job nor is it even possible for the government to ensure that every citizen is taken care of.

While reading All the Nations Under Heaven: a brief overview of the making of the ethnically diverse NYC, there were definitely one thing that stood out to me: the affect of the Irish immigrants from 1789 to 1880. Their ability to come together as a group, avoid assimilation, and use their combined power to affect the politics of NYC, truly stands out as an example of the power of a singular group in this amazing city’s politics. The way they used their power to gain favor with Tammany Hall, led to an improvement in their way of living, and protected the rights they wanted to keep( such as saloons staying open).  This struck me as the possible precedent for campaigning techniques that are prevalent in our world today. When politicians are campaigning to be mayor ( or any other elected post) they are always running from one minority group to another to sway the groups’ votes to their side. These politicians realize that the power of gaining a minority ethnic group’s support in certain districts can make or break a campaign. Furthermore, just like the Irish with Tammany Hall, these politicians are willing to promise almost anything to gain the support of any given minority group.

Personally, I felt that this was an important development in how our city runs day to day. For the first time a minority decided to stand up for what they believed in and actually were able to convince those in power. From John Hughes creating a strong Catholic Church to his advent of parochial schools, he led the Irish immigrants in their fight against “the man.” I believe this paved the way for all minorities to get their views heard, as they now had a precedent to rely on. In today’s NYC where there are constantly new waves of different ethnic groups coming in, as seen in the presentation by Joe Salvo last Tuesday night, this is extremely important. For us to work together in the world’s “melting pot” we all need to be able to have our voices heard.