As I read the last section of this book, it was shocking to see how much the relationship between FDR and La Guardia had developed through the years. Even though each held their loyalty to different parties, they converged to promote progressive ideals and reform. Yet La Guardia, during WWII, shifted his focus incredibly from reviving NYC after the Great Depression to altering America’s foreign policy. This area of his political involvement demanded so much that he had to compromise the efficiency and reputation of his leadership. Nonetheless, he was able to bring about active responses to an increasing unemployment rate and other issues of the time. However, his achievements still do not hide the corrupt manner in which he pursued these necessary changes. I was saddened to read about how a man with immense potential and integrity was still vulnerable to all the misconduct that is associated with the political arena. But in the end, La Guardia can still claim to have revolutionized NYC through the many bills he proposed, the organizations he supported, and the necessary reform that he pressed for.

When I read part one of City of Ambition, I was intrigued to notice the blatant similarities in political agenda between two men of very different backgrounds. Franklin D. Roosevelt grew up with an elite social status with advanced education and other invaluable resources at his disposal, while Fiorello La Guardia struggled to emerge from a stodgy, stagnant life as a clerk in an American consulate in Budapest. But both had the relentless drive to overcome obstacles such as the onset of polio or the death of loved ones to fight for the welfare of the country. Although Roosevelt was loyal to the Democratic Party and La Guardia dared not abandon his allegiance to the Grand Old Party, both both believed in the ideology that society could be improved through human action and that the task of government was to adapt to new technological age. Their similarities in ideology as only further highlighted during the Great Depression, as they promoted the development of public power and claimed that the inadequacy of existing relief efforts should be addressed by using spending resources of higher government. It’s remarkable to observe how two men of different political backgrounds were able to convene upon the solution of the issue of a failing nation.

When I read Bread Givers, I was engrossed by the debilitating circumstances that the Smolinsky had to endure. Even if the daughters sought relief from their suffocating lifestyles, it seemed that their father’s unyielding grasp on their future vanquished any hope to pursue their own interests. This tragedy is largely due to the distinct generational chasm between the father and his children. While he is stubborn in keeping with traditions from his home country, Poland, the children observe and yearn for the independent, indulgent way of life that was so popularized in America. Although poverty, racism, gender inequalities, and much more prevented these immigrant children from advancing to a greater extent, it was their link to their inflexible past and culture that more significantly precluded their pursuits of happiness.

Bread Givers. The title itself has an interesting twist: Although Sara’s father is supposed to be the “bread giver” of his family, his weary, overworked daughters are the ones who struggle for the sustenance of the household. Yet, in the end–almost as if Yezierkska incorporates an ironic spin– her father is forced to lay aside his esoteric contemplation and begin to peddle goods during his last years of his life. “Bread Givers” also has another relatively metaphoric dimension to its meaning. In the father’s perspective, the “bread” that the he feeds his children is the Word, or the Torah, is more important than that which nourishes the physical body. So, in this sense, he is in fact the true “Bread Giver.” But rather than bringing forth beneficial results in his daughters’ lives, the “bread” that he provides exacerbates the dynamics of the family. Aside from his youngest, Sara, who blatantly denies the bread he gives her, all of his other daughters succumb and listen to his relentless preaching.

Towards the late nineteenth century, many zealous men and women with novel ideas and radical opinions searched for an opportunistic safe haven where they could promote modern ways of life. New York City’s Greenwich Village became their ultimate destination. In “American Moderns,” Christine Stansell thoroughly analyzes the ever-changing dynamics of this lower Manhattan neighborhood before, during, and after the 1910s. While including the biographies of free thinkers such as Floyd Dell, Margaret Anderson, and many more personalities, Stansell also gives much insight into the drive that pulled in these middle-class visionaries–the desire to “matter.”Bohemia enhanced notions of the city as boundlessly knowledgeable and nourishing during a time when people sought to challenge social norms. Evidence of this is found, for example, in the development of the New Woman, the independent, self-sufficient protagonist  in literature of the time; this new perception of the modern woman allowed those who were once subjected to patriarchal, authoritarian rule to form an identity for themselves. This kind of breaking away from traditional values and practices became a popular trend during the early twentieth century. That which was once considered unthinkable became almost typical within this great city.

When I read this historical piece of literature, I was awed by how people of different backgrounds and cultures all melded together in a relatively symbiotic, quid-pro-quo relationship in New York City. For instance, immigrants from Russia and other Eastern European were able to share revolutionary dogmas to curious, well-educated middle-class knowledge seekers, who in turn, began to show the respect that these outsiders never had. The radical nature of Greenwich was further highlighted in the last section, which focused on the supposed freedom of love. This freedom of love was encouraged and thought to empower women so that they would  have sexual equality with men. However, this ideal, like others sought at the time, was still quite unreachable because of the complications brought by human emotion and carnal desire. Likewise, when it involved African Americans, the bohemian liberal, left-sided state of mind also fell short of its claim to modernistic ways. Racism and old ways are often difficult to sweep away to the side. In the end, however,   Greenwich village evolved in significant ways to become a refuge for the unconventional–for those who were always on the outside.

After reading Craig Calhoun’s perspective on the inefficiency of America’s response to the ubiquitous risk that exists today, I was amazed to realize how skewed our distribution of resources is. Under the facade of providing relief to its citizens, American policies only allow for stagnant, incompetent government actions that eschew efforts to relieve those who suffer. Calhoun recognized that this ordeal can only be eliminated if the government attempted to minimize risks, became prepared to respond, and and considered ways to share the burdens disasters create. But, all this is idealistic when we look at how our government has taken care of catastrophes from the past. Politicians have other agendas besides investing in safer technologies and availability of immediate assistance. Risk and damages allow for business opportunities and essentially gain profit. Although charities and non-profit organizations exist for the purpose of providing relief to those who survive disasters, these efforts appear relatively small and inadequate in light of the immensity of the need. While some may receive proper care during times of necessity, there is a huge percentage of individuals who lack in getting any sort of tangible help.

Diversity echoes through the streets of New York City, and this pattern came into manifestation centuries ago as immigrants from various areas of the world found refuge and opportunity in this safe haven. It’s quite interesting to note the progressive trend towards greater freedoms and economic stability as the years passed on. Beginning from the 1600s with the Dutch colonization of New Amsterdam and other cities, diversity was enhanced as commercial prosperity depended on toleration. Although there were certain individuals such as Peter Stuyvesant who tried delaying this, little by little, tolerance became more evident. New York City became a refuge for religious outcasts and those who sought economic betterment. Even though there were many differences in culture, outlooks, and practices, the various immigrants shared many commonalities: the crossing, the landing, the tenement and boardinghouse, and poverty. This ironically unified otherwise starkly contrasting worlds.