These excerpts from Wilkerson’s Warmth of Other Suns were a great read for me because I really enjoy American history, especially regarding race issues. I’ve heard the story of blacks moving out of the South during the twentieth century, but I’ve never read anything related to the topic that was so detailed. These first-hand accounts of the Great Migration were very enlightening and intriguing to read.

Something from the first excerpt that caught my attention was Wilkerson’s question regarding her mother’s picture: “Was it a braver thing to stay, or was it a braver thing to go?” (12). I think the answer is both, and that either one can be interpreted as cowardice towards the other. Of course it was incredibly brave to embark alone on a journey into an unknown world, but it would have also been brave to stay and endure the cruelties of segregation. On the other hand, leaving could mean you were afraid of what would happen if you’d stayed, and staying could mean you were afraid of what would happen if you’d left.

The closing statements of the first excerpt are: “They did what human beings looking for freedom, throughout history, have often done. They left,” (15). Wilkerson offers multiple examples of humans doing just that over the course of a few hundred years, and each one made me wonder what would have happened if the people had never left. It’s great to hear the stories of those who defined the Great Migration, but now I’m curious to hear the stories of those who didn’t. I want to know who was eventually better off—the people who left or the people who stayed.

Although history often leads us to believe that those who left were much better off, it appears that such is not necessarily the case. As mentioned in the seventh excerpt, even in the North, blacks were condemned to certain residential areas and were restricted in terms of their jobs. Discrimination was nonexistent in general, but Northerners still exercised their own personal discriminations by, for example, keeping blacks out of their organizations.

Warmth of Other Suns is a great retelling of an important part of American history. It provides an interesting perspective on something that most people don’t recognize as an event. I felt that it could have included some different viewpoints, such as from people on the other side of the migration, but it still offered good and thought-provoking insight on something that affected many lives.

In the article entitled “Diagnosis: Battered but Vibrant,” from The New York Times, Benedict Carey discusses how neighborhoods are defined by their residents and how that can ward off economic hardships. He mentions a theory that states that a neighborhood’s character shapes its economic future. In my opinion, that doesn’t really make sense at all. It’s quite obvious that the reputation of a neighborhood stems from the characteristics of its residents, but I don’t understand how those characteristics could mold an economic future.

Carey mentions in the article that Chatham has managed for decades to be unaffected by the financial troubles of surrounding areas because of its strong identity. This puzzled me, for I don’t really see how that’s possible. I know that I too live in a city that has extraordinarily different neighborhoods right next to each other, but this statement in the article made me question just how that works. Of course neighborhoods consisting of wealthier residents would be less hindered by the recession, but how can a strong sense of community save an area from the economic downturn that is sweeping the nation?

Based on the article, I can’t tell if this outcome applies to any other places, so I can only conclude that perhaps the case in Chatham is an anomaly. The story regarding Officer Wortham’s death and the effect it had on the economy of the neighborhood sounds like a miracle of sorts. It’s almost cliché how a beloved resident passes away and the neighborhood falls apart, but then everyone comes together as a community and things suddenly pick back up. I’m not trying to say that the story isn’t credible; I’m just having a hard time believing that it proves the theory about a neighborhood’s character shaping its economic future.

On the other hand, maybe I’m having a hard time grasping this concept because I’m from New York City. Sure it’s a city, just like Chicago, but its neighborhoods are filled with people who originated from other places and/or don’t plan on staying long. Chatham sounds like a place where everyone in the neighborhood has known each other since birth, and I’ve never heard of a place like that in New York City. It’s practically impossible to have that strong a sense of identity and community here because everything is constantly changing.

Were we to assume that the Chatham example is legitimate proof and could reoccur, however, I wonder if other neighborhoods across the United States could employ the same tactic and eventually beat out the recession. I’m sure there are plenty of close-knit neighborhoods out there that can put the aforementioned theory to the test once and for all. If the theory proves true, perhaps we can eliminate a slight portion of our economic troubles.