Having seen the movie before reading the book, I was really excited to read “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” It tells the classic story of an enigmatic woman filled with secrets and strangeness. Right off the bat, it is clear that this book takes place in New York, because of the diversity of characters as well as the acceptance of a rather alternative, liberal lifestyle that the characters lead. Holly is a “free” woman — she sees many men, all of whom are older than she is, and she does not see any problem with this, though it takes place during a time when this kind of behavior was not so common and accepted. The narrator is a writer, immediately reflecting the kind of creative, independent soul that was common in New York City. Then there are the neighbors, namely Mr. Yunioshi. Also in the beginning of the novel we learn that there is a strong possibility that Holly is traveling around Africa. What I found a bit surprising about this book however, was that despite the diversity and seemingly liberal lifestyle lived by characters like Holly and Fred, there were still very apparent hints of racism held by the characters. Holly has no problem using the n-word, as well as other derogatory slurs to describe African Americans, which is ironic because of her mysterious Africa journey at the beginning of the novel. My guess is that this would actually be a very realistic depiction of how people were during this time, because even though New York was already a booming center of cultural diversity, African Americans were still one of, if not the most, discriminated against groups of people. Even though this was a realistic depiction, however, it made it difficult for me to really connect with Holly as much as I tried. I found her an interesting and strange character, but personally I could not relate on a deeper level because of her deeply inset racism.

I found “City of Ambition” to be a rather eye-opening book. Apart from learning a lot about FDR and La Guardia’s companionship and positions in office, this book made me think about politics today and how it is different and similar to politics in the 30s. In the 30s, it seemed like politicians like FDR and La Guardia were much more concerned with economy support and social programs than politicians are today, which is alarming. So much attention is payed to smaller social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, and birth control. While these issues must be dealt with and are important, I feel as though there are larger issues that the US needs to take care of first; such as increasing job growth, making health care affordable, and stimulating the economy in different ways. It’s so great to read about someone as strong as FDR leading our country, which is the role I think the president needs to take. Obama, though he is trying, does not seem to have the same vigor and persistence that someone like FDR did. This could largely be due to the bipartisan struggle he faces whenever he tries to get anything done, but it’s a bit disappointing to see the minuscule, if any, growth in our economy since 2008’s market crisis.

I think New York City would also benefit from having another mayor like La Guardia. Hopefully Bill de Blasio will take a note or two from La Guardia and focus on affordable housing and safe infrastructure, because these are some of the most pressing issues facing out city today.

I only realized once I read everyone else’s posts that I had read ahead in my last response and mentioned Roosevelt and the New Deal.

I thought it made a lot of sense throughout the book that Roosevelt and La Guardia would be such great companions, even though they came form such different political backgrounds. The New Deal was obviously a huge change in America and was Roosevelt’s way of pushing the US out of the Great Depression. La Guardia’s politics reflected many of these ideals, namely, city governments being funded and supported by the federal government. This proved to be a huge factor in La Guardia’s rebuilding and support of the growth of New York City. The city became a great central model of New Deal operations, such as welfare programs and public work (parks, affordable housing), all of which proved to help the city tremendously and put La Guardia high on the list of the city’s best mayors.

While I found it quite interesting to read about the close relationship between Roosevelt and La Guardia, which I was not aware of before, I found it most interesting to learn about La Guardia’s amazing efforts to turn New York City into a safer, more accommodating pace than it had been before. We all know about the terrible living conditions of tenement housing in the city, and La Guardia seemed to be one of the first mayors to actually try and take action on it. New York had always been seen as the center for opportunity in America, which many immigrants unfortunately learned was a very romantic exaggeration. Many immigrants still suffered and did not gain the kind of social mobility that they were promised. But La Guardia tried to change that. By emphasizing an importance on infrastructure and public housing, he really did help turn the New York City into a “City of Ambition”–La Guardia seemed to be busy non-stop.

Reading about all of La Guardia’s advancements made me think about the concerns of our most recent mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Instead of trying to stimulate the economy and focusing on affordable housing in the midst of a major rent problem, he focused on things like large beverages and stop-and-frisk, which I have always found baffling. This book makes me think more about the prospective future of our new mayor, De Blasio. De Blasio has claimed to plan on focusing on affordable rent, which I think is one of the most pressing issues that our city is facing. Will De Blasio measure up to someone as ambitious and persistent as La Guardia?

Bread Givers is a wonderfully detailed and honest story about a poor Jewish family living in 1920s New York City. I found this story to be particularly compelling because it felt very real. It was based on Yezierska’s life, which is definitely a major factor in the honest telling of the story. This book deals with a lot of issues that were not only prevalent at the time, but ones that are present today. Specifically, the struggles that immigrant families go through and female independence vs. family dependence.

The father of the Smolinsky family, Reb, is constantly concerned with how much money his daughters are bringing into the household, but restricts their freedom to make their own life decisions, like who they want to marry, whether or not they want to go to school, and others. The relationship between Sarah and her father was one that really stood out as being very tumultuous and unsteady throughout the book. I found myself really sympathizing for Sarah when she was constantly criticized by Reb for her life decisions when all she was doing was trying to succeed and make a life for herself, while at the same time supporting her family. Sarah’s going to school made her a new kind of woman that was emerging at the time–an educated, free woman who makes choices for herself. However her father was the constant restrictive force of the patriarchy, which was both angering and saddening. Every time that Reb criticized her, my heart ached because I knew that she was just a spirit that needed freedom but still loved her family enough to provide for them in the best way she could. This book definitely says a lot about women and the challenges they faced during this time, and especially those of poor, immigrant women, who probably faced the toughest challenges of all.

Walking around Greenwich Village today, it seems to be a very different place from what it was in the early 20th century. Today there are expensive condos and walk-ups, “hip” coffee shops where everyone has a latte and a macbook, bookstores, restaurants with hard-to-pronounce names, and boutiques with clothing that most of us wouldn’t dream of spending so much money on. Though it appears to be a center of culture and commerce, it does not have the bustle and diversity of minds and people that it seemed to have in the teens. Christine Stansell’s book expresses an amazing array of small biographies of people who were right in the middle of bohemian New York City.

One bio that I found particularly compelling was that of Emma Goldman, a Jewish “new woman” who emigrated from her oppressive home in Russia. She hated the conservative expectations of women and their roles in society as well as personal roles in marriage. I am so inspired by her will to resist societal norms and hold such extreme, anarchist views that frightened those around her. It may be hard to imagine what such oppression could feel like, but at this time, women were not expected to do anything beyond what they were taught. She came to New York City to find greater opportunities, but for more than just money–she wanted political freedom as a woman. She was able to immediately find other women and likeminded people to discuss (at the time) radical ideas. I’m actually amazed that I had never heard of her before. She was such a persistent, intelligent woman who wasn’t afraid to speak her mind. She was a forerunner of feminism, and I wish I could go back in time and discuss feminism and politics over a cup of coffee with her. Even her photograph makes her look like the most intimidating and amazingly intelligent woman you could ever meet.

This book got me thinking a lot about what New York City is today in contrast with what it was 100 years ago. People came to the city with ideas, with ambition, and with high hopes for a future rich with culture and intellectual stimulation. And at the time, all of this was readily available for those who strived for it. In a way, New York is still this way–people come here with hopes of making it as artists, musicians, writers, etc. But with such high costs of living, it seems to be much more difficult to thrive as an intellectual or an artist today. While the city may still be considered a center of culture, diversity, and art, I think it is quite clear that living a “bohemian” lifestyle is not as accessible as it was 100 years ago.

The United States is a strange nation. We pride ourselves on being a free-market, capitalistic country, and yet in countless instances our government fails to provide adequate social and economic services that any modern, well-funded government should be able to provide. Our problem is that everything in the country revolves around money and pleasing private companies. The example in the article about Hurricane Katrina is a perfect instance where the government undoubtedly failed to protect and provide for its citizens. You’d think that with such a well-funded military (a bit too well-funded, in my opinion) and our practically unrestrained access to doctors and medical care, that our country would be more well-prepared for a hurricane. I remember when Hurricane Katrina happened, I was about 9 years old and I distinctly remember being so let down and confused by the fact that on the news I saw people with children being stranded in the streets with no food or shelter. And then where there was shelter–at the Astrodome–the living conditions were filthy, crime rates were high, and it basically seemed as though the government had no idea what it was doing. Even at 9 years old, I could recognize that there was something off about the countries so-called “disaster relief” programs and services.

Sometimes, however, our country seems to be able to unite when tragedy strikes. I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I remember the city feeling like a different place after 9/11. Not just in everyone’s shell shock and horror, but in the way that everyone seemed to realize that in the face of foreign (or at least we think) threat, we must stick together and provide for one another as a community. My family was forced to move for a few months, since our building was only a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. Every week or so, the Red Cross or another government service would show up to the school we were moved to, and make sure we were okay. They gave us stuffed animals, books, meals, and hand-written letters from children across the country, sending us their wishes for a brighter future and quick recovery. Although at the time, I could not fully understand why or how these things got to me, it was one of the first times I ever felt as though I was a part of a bigger picture–a city, and a nation. These are the things that cannot be allowed to be controlled by private companies hungry for money and advertising.

While reading “All the Nations Under Heaven,” it becomes apparent just how unique New York City is as a world center of ethnic mixture and diversity. We seem to take for granted that all religions, ethnicities, races, and cultures coexist harmoniously (for the most part) in this enormous city, but clearly this has not always been the case. Although New York City may still have its shortcomings in terms of ethnic and racial harmony, for the most part, anyone and everyone can come to the Big Apple and not have to worry about unequal opportunities based solely on where they come from.

I found it interesting and a bit surprising that New Amsterdam, in its early days of largely Dutch-run trade, was a very tolerant settlement. I’ve always had a vague idea that the Dutch are a quite tolerant people, but I was surprised and happy to learn that the early settlement of New Amsterdam let people of different religions do what they wanted, for the most part. It’s fascinating to read about how as the city became gradually larger and more mixed, that it went through phases of high tolerance and tense relations between people of different races, religions, and ethnicities.

For someone who has spent her entire life in the bustling melting pot that is New York City, it’s pretty hard for me to imagine what it would be like to arrive in a completely new place and not speak the language of most people surrounding you. My mother immigrated to New York City from Colombia when she was around 10 years old. She recalls how difficult it was to assimilate in a school where she spoke not one word of the English. As if being a Spanish-speaking foreigner didn’t make her enough of an outcast, she was also put into a Polish Catholic school when she first arrived. She was the only non-Polish student, and although the majority of the school’s students were welcoming and friendly, she remembers that many kids would call her disgusting slurs and disrespect her because of her Latin American origins. Eventually she became settled and made many friends, and learned English rather quickly. All things considered, this was also the 1970s, a time when most people were more tolerant than in the past, and immigrants could assimilate fairly quickly without much trouble. I can hardly imagine how strange it would be to be a young immigrant in New York City in the 18th or 19th century, when people were much more divided and prejudiced.