Although World War II doesn’t figure strongly in the characters’ lives, Breakfast at Tiffany’s tells the soap opera-esque story of Holiday Golightly. To add to this sense, our narrator is never given a name (other than the nickname “Fred” by Holly), which allows us to feel like anonymous viewers of the drama that is Holly’s life.

I was especially struck by the ending of the novel because I was left questioning Holly’s happiness: although her postcard seems as though she is living a positively divine and exotic life, like she did in New York City, it seems as though her existence remains as shallow as ever. Her affair with a married man, though presumably wealthy, seems as though it may end like her other relationships do. In fact, dating a married man guards her against confronting her fear of commitment and allows her to avoid connecting with other people in meaningful ways.

It is possible that Holly will be contentedly happy living out her life with exciting affairs and adventures, but it is equally possible that she will fail to find any deeper meaning and she will eventually fade out of the spotlight. As much as Holly loves the curiosity and disapproval she incites in others, it doesn’t seem to me that she can continue this way forever.

I think that the open ended ending is reflective of Holly’s character in some ways, for it is hard to be sure of what is genuine and what we can expect from her. Holly both begins and ends the novel with no one knowing exactly where she is or where she’s been.

Roosevelt and LaGuardia’s relationship in The City of Ambition was a bit surprising to me–that two powerful men, a Democrat and a Republican, were able to work so closely towards Progressive goals is an idea so in contrast to our current political climate. Of course, there are modern exceptions to the “rule” of two warring parties which never accomplish anything, but I think that political parties have come to mean too much. That is, Democrats and Republicans have polarized most issues in order to form the largest support bases, and neither party is willing to compromise on an issue for fear of weakness and loss. However this leads to the sort of gridlock we see in government today where very little is able to be accomplished.

FDR’s New Deal is often looked at as a great political success and turning point in American political culture and society. Yet it was also a tremendous (and unprecedented) presidential grab for power. The New Deal, for both Roosevelt and the US and LaGuardia and NYC, was so successful in restoring prosperity to the country because political leaders were willing to compromise for the good of their constituents. We saw in City of Ambition that Roosevelt and LaGuardia came from drastically different backgrounds and had different sets of values guiding their decisions, yet both men had values which led them to making similar sorts of choices and to compromise with other parties. They enjoyed one of the closest political relationships between a major Mayor and President, in part because both men had strong values that culminated in actions for the good of their city/nation. Perhaps if politicians today expressed greater interest in the good of the people rather than in keeping up appearances, our nation would enjoy a government that was able to get things done.

During this first section of City of Ambition, I found it remarkable that two men—La Guardia and Roosevelt—with such markedly different histories and upbringings could arrive at the same place in politics. These men epitomize Progressive politics of the early 20^th century, yet their rise to that pedestal and their reasons for their politics are quite different. La Guardia symbolizes the American Dream, the Carnegie-esque rags to riches tale of hard work, charisma, and belief in oneself, while Roosevelt illustrates an incredible thirst to live up to a name and a reputation, to do anything to be the best. The differences between these two giants seem to symbolize the incredible variation within the Democratic party, which Roosevelt very successfully united. Both men enjoyed tremendous political success and began to redefine the role of government: no longer was the American government something that should be arbitrarily limited; rather it became a tool to better the lives of the people, an extension of the community. The interactions with political corruption, particularly Tammany Hall and the Democratic machine in New York City, are quite interesting as well. Systematic attacks by Roosevelt and La Guardia on the machine played a major role in cleaning up 20^th century politics.

The history texts that we have read previously may do a good job illustrating the story of immigrant groups, and of highlighting individual success stories. However the story of the group tells little of an average individual’s day to day life, and the success stories are 1 in a million type cases that don’t capture the toil and drudgery required to climb to the top. Bread Givers may be fiction, but it is based on Anzia Yezierska’s experiences as a woman who eventually found success coming from the Jewish Lower East Side. I found Sara’s story to be both tremendously sad at times, for the fates of her sisters and her family’s everyday struggles captured a reality shared by many immigrants, but also to be inspiring. Sara captured the idea of the American Dream: she rose from poverty to obtain a college education and career success, becoming, as she says “a real person”. Yet her story doesn’t neglect the particular heart break hidden in the American Dream–as Sara becomes Americanized, she neglects cultural tradition and even family. In leaving behind poverty, Sara leaves an ancient history behind in order to forge a new one. This is not to say that she completely abandons her culture, but rather to point out that she changes from the Old World with its strict traditions to the New World’s ways, and that while she gains much, including, finally, a sense of personal pride and independence, she does lose something as well.

To me, the most interesting aspect of reading about the bohemian era in American Moderns by Christine Stansell was the diverse group of people that made up the bohemian group in Greenwich Village. Wealthy progressive thinkers and lower class anarchists were united in common beliefs for greater equality: The upper and middle class bohemians were drawn to this lifestyle by a belief that it would greater open their minds to new experiences, and therefore expose them to innovative artistic ideas. That the upper class expressed discontent and would sometimes consciously choose a less comfortable life for themselves reminded me of Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence which was written during this era about the 1890s. In the novel, Newland Archer–a young, moneyed New Yorker–expresses discontent with May Weland, his fiance, because she is unwilling to step out of the confines of societal expectations. Conversely, he is attracted to the mysterious Countess because of her disdain for society. It is in this same way, I believe, that upper class people joined the progressives and anarchists and began to transform Greenwich Village into the happening spot we know today.

When one weighs an action, whether to pursue it, the possible outcomes, etc., “risk” always seems to be a factor in that decision. Although certain actions are always risky, our capitalist society mitigates the potential risk for those who can afford it. The wealthy living in New Orleans could afford to evacuate the city when Katrina struck. They had insurance, which paid for what they lost, and the resources to reach out to others for help. We saw how the poor, elderly, and disabled suffered as consequence of the storm (and the human error/greed that did not protect against it), and unfortunately this is not an isolated incidence of how privatization reduces the risk for those who have, but does little to lessen risks for the have-nots.

When Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, I was living with my family on Long Island. We were hit hard—we lost power for 14 days, our road was covered in branches, there was no gas to be had on the island—yet we had plenty of food and water (we could afford to stock up), we had access to hot water for showering through my dad’s job, and our insurance covered the damage to our property. Yet other families on Long Island were not so lucky: in the weeks after Sandy many people went hungry, were cold, and had no means of reaching out for help.

Free market societies are wonderful in that they allow people to reach nearly unlimited success, yet some things should not be privatized no matter the monetary gain. When it is a matter of life and death, such as important safety and security measures, no amount of money makes up for human suffering and loss of life.

Reading about the earliest immigrants to America showed me how true the idea of the American Dream is, and especially the truth of New York City as a melting pot for different ethnic and religious groups. Although today’s major immigrant groups to New York City are Hispanic and Asian instead of the Irish, Italians or Russian Jews of past generations, there are many commonalities between immigrants’ experiences. Firstly, the groups are usually discriminated against upon their arrival. Employers are often hesitant to hire from the newest immigrant group (“No Irish need apply”), and we see this today when people speculate over the immigration status of Hispanic laborers.

In the presentation at John Jay, we saw that many New York City neighborhoods are segregated by group: the Caribbean people settle in Flatbush, the Chinese in Flushing, and the Dominicans are replacing the Puerto Ricans in neighborhoods in the Bronx. This parallels to how the Irish concentrated in Five Points upon their arrival, and the Jews later settled the Lower East Side. Many immigrants find the comforts of home by settling in these neighborhoods, whether through shared food or language traditions.

It amazed me that despite the discrimination that groups face in New York City, they continue to immigrate here. For many, racism and low wages are a better reality than the one they escape, and America, particularly New York City, has always held a unique place in the hearts of refugees and dissidents. The Dutch established a precedent of economics over all else, which has remained pretty true in our capitalist society. This, in essence, is the American Dream. Despite discrimination, there is a chance for anyone to prosper here, no matter his or her roots.

I did notice, however, that, just as it is today, it was much easier for the more skilled immigrants to find work and then become accepted into society. The Germans, for example, were more skilled workers than the Irish and were therefore less discriminated against. I found it interesting that the most diseased wards of the city were the ones in which the Irish lived. When I went on the Irish Outsiders tour at the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, the tour guide mentioned that even though the building was in a German neighborhood at the time, the Irish family likely moved there because it was cleaner and more spacious than the Irish neighborhoods. It even had plumbing, not just a pit underneath the outhouse.