By the end of the book as FDR and LaGuardia end their time in office you can see that it is an end of an era like no other in history. It was amazing to see how politicians can set politics aside for the good of the people. While it’s easy to romanticize all the progress that was made during this era I think it’s important to keep in mind that both men were very power hungry. The fact that they were able to cast aside party politics was only possible because of the time period and they wouldn’t have done it if it sunk their political careers. Both tried to stay in office longer then normal using the political capitol they’d built during the New Deal and while FDR was able to stay in power till the end, New York City and LaGuardia didn’t benefit from the war which eventually ended his career.

Roosevelt’s relationship with LaGuardia came as a surprise to me since I once did a paper on Roosevelt and found no mention of the work they did together but it seems only logical since both politicians came from NY.  Another aspect that stood out to me was how the two were able to get past party politics and work together. Something that is hard to imagine in modern day politics, perhaps a major crises is necessary for that to happen.  It was also fascinating to see how a national crises like the great depression created an opportunity for progressive thinkers like Roosevelt and LaGuardia, turns out one mans lose really is another mans gain.

Williams also talks about how Roosevelt channeled more money into NYC than into any other local government. Is a policy like this justifiable or just an example of how politically skilled LaGuardia was? While the work that was created by public works projects in NYC definitely revitalized the city I am skeptical about how helpful these projects were in terms of creating better city infrastructure.

Bread Givers was an interesting book in terms of perspective. The other books we read were historical accounts of the time period. This book allows us to experience the early 20^th century through the eyes of one family making the reading more engaging.

As for the family lifestyle I found the fathers role out of the ordinary. His dependence on his wife and daughters contradicts the typical stereotype of a family supported by a patriarch which I thought was common for the time period. Throughout the book I was under the impression that the father neglects his responsibilities and is a burden, both financially and culturally. His refusal to integrate throughout the novel might be his only redeeming quality since it makes him a constant in a world that is otherwise always changing.

The most striking aspect of “American Moderns” is how radical movements that originated in this era are portrayed in a more positive light. Previous history courses display political movements like the anarchists as a small group that was suppressed. Stansell treats them as free spirited thinkers who caused progress, showing both the successes and failures of people like Emma Goldman.

Another part that stood out to me was how Village life reformed the way people talk and interact. I always took for granted that we have free speech in America given that it is a constitutional right but the distinctive culture portrayed in “American Moderns” takes those rights and test them. People from all walks of life found a public outlet for their ideas and were able to entertain thoughts that weren’t accepted by mainstream thinkers. It is fascinating to see how New York City came into the spotlight as a center for free thinking and culture, its also disappointing how the whole movement soon disappeared, or was replaced. By the end radicalism spread past the village and was largely watered down and accepted.

When I started reading “All the Nations Under Heaven” I was fascinated by the fact that Jews were one of the first immigrant groups to arrive in New York City. I always assumed that Jews arrived much later in American history. While I know New York was considered religiously tolerant it didn’t appear so in the text.  Stuyvesant’s zealous enforcement of Orthodoxy is far from our idea of tolerant. New Amsterdam is only relatively tolerant when compared to the rest of the world, and that tolerance was only possible because it coincided with the West India Company’s economic interests rather than the majority’s open-minded beliefs. On pg.99 the book explains how the Irish found a place in Tammany Hall and NYC politics. Politics granted them access to city contracts and jobs. This trend that started before 1900 helps explain why till this day many people in my predominantly Irish community work in public service.  While I find it fascinating that New York has maintained its status as a place open to immigrants when so many other places haven’t, I think its important to note the difference between open and welcoming. The book makes it clear that NYC was a safe haven for the masses but life was still a struggle, economically and in terms of societal acceptance.