The famous comic book writer Stan Lee once said “With great power comes great responsibility.” To me, this quote is the epitome of what New York City and its population was living through during the late 19th century. As it became America’s richest and most powerful city following the American Revolution, New Yorkers were inevitably forced to deal with all the  tension and disapproval that came along with it.

New York’s dominance over the American economy became undeniable as early as the 1820s. The streets were becoming increasingly full of pedestrians eager to create a financial district that would thrive like none other before. Both migrants and immigrants would pile into New York and its working class was in full swing. Additionally, activist movements were in full swing during this time in New York City. While crusades against poverty, slavery, prostitution, etc. were nationwide, New York’s wealth and advances in communications and publishing caused them to be at the forefront of reform in America during this time. The American Revolution had given rise again to the ideal of American people choosing right and rejecting wrong, and so activism became the ultimate way for the people to do so. This being said though, as Americans began to stand up for what they believed in, Steven Jaffe explains that they could not always do so harmoniously. People would go to New York because of its belief in reform, however conflict and inequality over different ideals could not be avoided as a result. 800,000 people in the nation’s largest metropolis proved to be both an incredible achievement as well as an incredible challenge.

A leading factor in the challenge of reform during this time was the Labor Movement between working men and aristocrats. In June 1836 a famous trial was held regarding 20 journeymen- tailors who were in the process of being trained to become master tailors. They had formed a “Trade Union” to earn higher wages from their master craftsmen. A jury found them guilty of “riot and conspiracy injurious to trade and commerce.” This verdict sparked backlash that would span for decades and protestors would handle it in all different ways. There were those unionists who threatened workers that would accept lower wages. Then there were others who took action by crowding City Hall and expressed their disapproval of the “Rich against the poor”. Finally, some union movements refused to work at all until wages were finally raised. These are the times when New York proved not only to be an economic powerhouse, but also a battleground between the working force and the aristocrats.

Eventually, the working force took matters into their own hands by taking political action. They formed the Workingmen’s Party in the hopes of creating a political agenda that was aligned with their own. Their ideals were all about equality, and more importantly, equal opportunity. They wanted a society where there was a much broader definition of what it meant to be a “working man.” While the party was eventually split due to rivals and competitors, it nonetheless had an influence on labor unions and the New York Democratic Party that can still be felt today.

N.O

Assimilation of newcomers has always been a pressing issue in America; however, ever since the American Revolution, the concern of accommodating to a rising and diversifying wave of people troubled America even more. One would expect the population to expand due to an increase in job opportunities in the city and the abandonment of rural duties, but the aftermath of war, such as the French Revolution, also “encouraged both republicans and monarchists … to seek refuge on Manhattan island” (34). For instance, the slave revolt in Santo Domingo produced an influx of 4,000 refugees. The demographics change constantly, as while some remain as permanent residents, the rest move back to their home country, providing space for the next wave of immigrants. Established communities would assimilate into the larger white society, visible through tangible objects such as local newspapers; For instance, the German Society aided refugees and promoted useful knowledge. The Council of Revision became afraid that this would horde immigrants who will be ignorant of the Constitution. On the other hand, New Yorkers still proved to be “charitable towards newcomers in difficulty” (35), raising money and opening hospitals. Essentially, the Atlantic wars discouraged migration, and the restoration of peace encouraged this wave. The concentration of skills brought over to New York established it as a magnet for mercantile affairs and domestic trade. As a result, NYC emerged as a financial center of the nation. The demand for “banks, insurance companies, auction houses, and permanent stock exchange” (36) rose, and by the 1840’s Wall Street became the center of the city’s financial district, as it is still today. European nations constituted the largest group of foreign businessmen, establishing the long line of white control. Historian Richard B. Scott pointed out that the majority of the immigrants arriving to New York City in the period prior to the Civil War were young rural men.

Moreover, many issues came up to the surface with the new wave of immigrants which demanded accommodation. As time progressed, immigration became more accessible due to advancements in technology; establishment of private passenger lines and invention of steam ships served as a catalyst for New York City’s dynamic growth and diversity. With this growth, as anticipated, immigrants faced troubles other than being in a foreign country with limited financial resources. “Runners” would falsely gain the trust of disordered migrants and misinform them to rob them of their cash as much as possible. To accommodate to these issues, new facilities were set up such as central landing stations for immigrants, like Castle Garden, which was later replaced by Ellis Island.

The effects of the rapid population growth also led to pushed physical boundaries, northward. Lower Manhattan was converted for commercial use as residents moved upwards or to Brooklyn, while Staten Island was used to hold quarantined or ill immigrants.  The need for an easy commute transformed the city as mass transportation took place; omnibuses and horse-drawn railways increased the pace of the city. The people, jobs, transportation, infrastructure, and poor housing undoubtedly led to hygiene issues and disease, causing yet another need for new agencies and establishments. The Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor (AICP) documented “appalling conditions and called for reform legislation” (43). To place in a nut shell, the dynamic growth of New York City triggered a chain of events that only pointed in one direction: to reform and adaptation. However, adaptation often leads to exclusion rather than inclusion, paving the path for discrimination and racism, jumpstarting the loop of accommodation once again. The need to immigrate led to an increase in jobs, leading to a rise in industry and housing. Rise of industry led to the expansion of living quarters and the need to repurpose infrastructure. The trial and error aspect of trying to adapt to all the needs led to the development of agencies and legislations, many of which helped New York City become what it is still today: a bustling microcosm.

V.B.

Postwar New York faced a tremendous influx of people, as it was attractive to foreigners for several different reasons. Immigrants, majorly comprised of the Irish, French, and German, arrived to New York escaping religious persecution and the French Revolution, making Manhattan a place of refuge. America was popular due to a successful conclusion of the American Revolution and economic opportunities that facilitated growth unlike any other country. However, the problems of immigrants weren’t completely over after arriving in New York. Due to political tensions and religious prejudices, members of the established community in New York were not welcoming. An undeclared naval war with France and the Alien and Sedition acts contributed greatly to this resentment of immigrants. In fact, when German immigrants asked to create a German Society, the Council of Revision didn’t grant permission, claiming that this would give rise to more ethnic communities and attract more immigrants that were ignorant of the policies established by the Constitution. However, at times when the political climate was calm, New Yorkers helped the newly arrived immigrants, including establishing hospital facilities and raising up money for the refugees from Santo Domingo. Later on, the German Society was also given a charter. Resentment saw a decline with the end of the naval war and the Alien and Sedition Acts; New Yorkers turned their attention to domestic affairs. Multi-ethnicity in New York was at this point ingrained into its makeup.

Besides the need to escape religious persecution, immigrants arrived in America for economic causes. The potato blight of the 1840s impacted the German and Irish the most, as they were forced off their land. Immigrants were leaving their homes in order to economically stabilize in America and send money back home, especially for those families who had depended on their agrarian economy. This, alongside new immigrants helping recently arrived immigrants like the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick did, became a pattern in the first decade of immigration. It strengthened transcontinental relationships, a pattern that exists in society till date. Other societies like the German Society and Irish Emigrant Society prevented immigrants from being misinformed of employment opportunities by “runners” who exploited immigrants’ lack of knowledge in terms of overpriced travel tickets and highly unfair rents.

As we saw in “Dynamic Growth and Diversity: The City and Its People”, lower Manhattan became an immigrant hub. Since rent was highly unaffordable, single family homes were turned into multiple dwelling apartments. Soon, tenements served as typical immigrant housing. They added to the unsafe and unsanitary living conditions of immigrants. A city inspector described them as, “many mercenary landlords who only contrive in what manner they can stow the greatest number of human beings in the smallest space” (42). This increase in poverty pushed New Yorkers to attempt at some reforms. Although with little impact, the Tenement House Law of 1867 and the Children’s Aid Society were two such reforms. The city’s plight truly worsened with cholera victimizing immigrant populations, especially the Irish who were comparatively weaker and poorer than other immigrants. “ In the 1849  cholera year Irish-born residents represented more than 40 percent of the city’s death toll from the disease” (45). Even more, municipal services were insufficient and even after some reform, their effects didn’t reach the poor immigrant communities till years after.

The Irish and the German, the main immigrant populations at the time, were the main witnesses  of New York’s inability to handle its growing status as a major city. Nonetheless, both populations had a different impact on the city. Although the Germans had an easier time assimilating than the Irish did, due to the abundance of skills they brought with them, like the Irish they sought out to find their own people and form their individual ethnic communities. They kept close through ethnic newspapers and fraternal organizations. However, rough patches were evident amongst ethnic communities themselves. For example, Irish Protestants did not want to identify with Irish Catholics. Several clashes and brawls between them led up to the Orange Riot of 1871. The Orangemen (Irish Protestants) wanted to organize a parade celebrating Boyne’s day, which commemorated William of Orange’s victory over King James II at the Battle of Boyne. Rumors of violence by both factions propelled state protection to be present at the march. Despite militia control, shots were fired and rocks were thrown. The death toll was sixty-two and mostly Irish Catholics were killed.

Despite such evident disparities, the interaction immigrants had with the black population in New York became a similar experience. Black immigrants shared the low economic and social status with the Irish. Each believed that the other came in the way of their economic opportunities. New immigrants were a threat to the black population as the work the newly arrived got was often at the expense of blacks. Even more, this hostility resonated in voting policies as many New Yorkers opposed black suffrage. From ferries to churches to restaurants, blacks were segregated everywhere. The black population’s backlash was seen through the Legal Rights Association which took transit companies to court after Elizabeth Jennings, a black woman was hurt when kicked of an omnibus and the independent black church movement which formed the African Methodist Church. Also, the Manumission Society founded the first African Free School in 1787 before handing over their management to the New York Public School Society in 1834.  

While “Dynamic Growth and Diversity: The City and Its People” elaborated on the discrimination blacks faced and the general atmosphere of New York with the arrival of new immigrants, “Diversity in Action: Irish and German Immigrants in a Growing City” honed in on the role that the Irish played in New York as arguably the first urban, poor-white minority group and how the experience of German immigrants was slightly different.

The Irish created street gangs named Dead Rabbits, Bowery B’ hoys, and Plug Uglies. However, it was not hard to understand why, as there was much tension and violence between various ethnic groups in New York City at the time. The Irish were aggressive due to the constant economic and social oppression they faced in both their home country and New York. The brawls Irish street gangs were involved in were more than just outbreaks of frustration however. Due to actual hunger, Irish workers broke in grain warehouses, known as the Flour Riot. The Irish often projected this growing rage against blacks, who they fought with for jobs, the British seen through the Astor Place Riot of May 1849, and at times amongst other Irishmen.

In terms of political participation, the Irish were loyal to the democratic party and to Tammany Hall. When New York discarded the property requirement for white, male voters, more Irishmen were enabled to vote and swing municipal elections, motivating the Democratic party to woo them. The Irish and Tammany Hall shared benevolent relationships because “The Irish in New York knew well how to use their saloons and their street gangs for Tammany’s causes. In return, Tammany delivered assistance in expediting naturalization; protected saloon keepers from overzealous enforcers of closing laws..”(64). Over time, the Irish demanded a greater role in democratic leadership. Mike Walsh, an Ireland- born journalist, advocated for workers’ rights and increased worker participation in the democratic party. He was elected to the state assembly and in 1850 won election to the House of Representatives. Although Germans were at first indifferent to politics, they too increased their role in the democratic party. In 1856, two Irishmen and a German won election to the City Council.

Even though the Democratic Party became vital for the Irish, they were still underrepresented as 58 percent of the power in the Democratic Party was with the “old stock” Americans. However, by dominating the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Irishmen proved that they had the power to tip the balance in elections. This sense of power was strengthened through Bishop John Hughes, an Irishman, who petitioned for a share of the state school funds for Catholic schools. He faced opposition from the Public School Society, anti-Catholic nativists, and citizens concerned about church-state separation. Bishop Hughes impressed legislators by the potential power of Irish voters as the only Catholic political party was established under his leadership. Even though no Catholic party candidates succeeded, the power of Irish Catholics became very evident.

Since native-American Catholics had a problem with the power Irish Catholics had over the church, opponents of the Democratic party used anti-Catholic sentiments to attract votes of native Americans. The nativist resentment was only ironed out after the Civil War because the city’s ethnic groups had the chance to demonstrate their loyalty by joining the troops. “No regiment was more renown for bravery and sacrifice than the predominantly Irish 69th” (72). While the relationship between the nativists and the Irish were improving, Irish resentment towards blacks was seen once again after the war. The Emancipation Proclamation infuriated them as they feared freed slaves would jeopardize their economic stability. Anti-war newspapers fueled this rage of resentment.  Benjamin Wood in the Daily News wrote that the Conscription Act draft “ would compel the white laborer to leave his family destitute and unprotected while he goes forth to free the negro, who, being free, will compete with him in labor” (73).

Unlike the Irish, the Germans had arrived in New York more educated, more financially stable, and more skilled, allowing their perception amongst native New Yorkers to be strikingly different. Although they did face poverty, an overwhelming amount of Germans became artisans and skilled tradesmen. In fact, German men monopolized the skilled trades. Although they did assimilate easier than the Irish had, nativist and Irish antagonism propelled them to remain separate. New Yorkers accused them of driving down wages of American craftsmen and Irish accused them of threatening their dominance on the city’s docks. Nevertheless, the Germans faced less opposition than the Irish had. They were not involved in street gang violence and had no reason to hold power in the church since only a portion of them were Catholic. Even though most Germans voted Democratic, many also sided with the Republican party and in general were less active in politics, saving them from more nativist opposition. Unlike the Irish, Germans practiced self-segregation protecting them from hostility. They did however argue that Bishop Hughes was only concerned about Irish sentiments, facilitating an incentive to form German national parishes. Soon, German Catholic parishes prospered.

The German-Jewish population also grew immensely in New York City between 1846 and 1886. This influenced Jewish religious life in the city tremendously and there was a major increase in the city’s synagogues. There was a creation of both a German-Jewish community and German-American culture. There was also a growing awareness of increasing social and economic disparities. Due to events like the Steinway piano strike of 1870, where Henry Engelhard Steinway attempted to cut wages of workers by a third, German trade unions began forming. Class conscious and socialist-leaning German immigrants, mainted socialism’s influence in the city. The German-American trade union movement expanded and with it socialist policies did as well.

German businessmen maintained labor peace and German culture simultaneously by founding separate German towns, promoting the notion that not all German immigrants shared the same values. This was also seen through different German reactions to industrialism. In College Point and Astoria, workers thrived in a “German atmosphere created and guided by industrialist patrons”(88). In Manhattan however, workers strived for a better life with socialist activism. Localism amongst the Germans remained consistent and was seen through regional associations, marriage partners, and regionally-based German neighborhoods.

Immigrant populations in New York City till date struggle with maintaining both an American and ethnic identity. For this reason, transcontinental relationships are as strong today as they were many years ago when patterns of immigration had just began forming. There are still cultural hubs all over the city, defining one immigrant population from the other. Equally important, even today we see division amongst people based on political and religious agendas. With Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism still very much alive and a declining trust in foreign relationships that Trump’s administration has showcased, the social climate of New York City today reminds us of the climate that existed in the nineteenth century.

Though today New York symbolizes a place of diversity and acceptance, under English colonial rule in the late 17^th century existed a rigid slave system that treated African slaves harshly and strictly. Not only were slaves unable to own property, but they could not even practice their own religion. As Steven Jaffe writes in, “Educating the Enslaved in Colonial New York”, “Many New York slaveholders resisted the idea of baptizing their slaves or teaching them to read the Bible, fearing that Christianity and literacy might embolden their human property to ask for freedom, or even try to seize it through violent rebellion.” However, Elie Neau directly challenged this notion in 1704 when he opened a revolutionary institution that for the next 19 years would teach the enslaved how to be “thinking literate Christians”. Though he wasn’t an abolitionist, his belief that all people had the right to be educated and religious set the foundation for antislavery activism in the future.

As Jaffe writes in, “Leather Aprons & Silk Stockings: The Coming of the American Revolution in New York”, this brutal treatment of slaves and the taxes and regulations on working New Yorkers sparked a sense of rebellion within them. The New York Tea Party on April 22,1774 showed Parliament that New Yorkers were no longer willing to be oppressed. Workingmen known as “leather aprons” and lawyers known as “silk stockings” felt these similar sentiments. Prior to and during the American Revolution, these groups were forced to work together. However, the aristocratic patricians and the laborers who protested in the streets often couldn’t see eye to eye. Nicholas Lampert in, “Visualizing a Partial Revolution” explains this when describing Paul Revere’s publication of, “The most influential Boston Massacre image.” His image did not accurately depict reality because it showed a revolution led by educated and wealthy whites, while in truth it was led by a diverse and multi-cultured mob. Jaffe concludes though that despite it being a violent war with the tensions between the “leather aprons” and the “silk stockings” constantly arising, in 1783 George Washington triumphantly rode into the streets of New York. However, though the victory was shared between both groups of Patriots, “Those divisions would spark future conflicts and future activism in the name of the revolution’s principles of liberty and independence.”

Lampert mentions that farmers and artisans were left out from the Constitutional Congress and were not invited to draft the new Constitution. This was particularly troubling because the absence of the working class meant that if a strong federal government was created, one again they would be oppressed. Liberty Poles were set up and resistance by laborers one again began. Simply put, “The success of the Conservative elites did not defuse class tensions during the War of Independence (1775-1783) or after. If anything, the tensions heightened.”

This is evident when looking at the 3/5 compromise. The decision to count three fifths of the slaves in a state’s population, “would help to elect slaveholding presidents” from 1800 to the 1850s. It is also evident when looking at the U.S. Voting Rights Timeline. In 1776, only landowners could vote, and the majority of landowners were white male Protestants over the age of 21. In 1787, because there was no national standard for voting, white male landowners still controlled voting for the most part. This is why George Washington was elected in 1787 by only 6% of the population. And lastly in 1790, only “free white immigrants” could become naturalized citizens.

Therefore, despite their undeniable success in the mid-18th century, it seems that at this point in history, many New Yorkers must have questioned how much progress they had really made since the days of Elie Neau.

-Molly Ottensoser

Religion is a staple part of United States’ culture, but with religious diversity comes clashes. Religious persecution continues to persist on since this nation consisted of merely colonies, as seen in Stephen Jaffe’s, “Chapter 1: Let Us Stay: The Struggle of Religious Freedom in Dutch New Netherland.” The movement of Quakers into Dutch New Netherland, now known as New York, gives readers a strong background of the origins of religious persecution  and how its effects evolve this city into a safe haven for individuals of different beliefs to settle.

Acceptance of Quakers in the New England colonies is highly controversial in 17^th century America. Religious uniformity is favored by governor, Peter Stuyvasent, but the desire to grow the colony causes issues over how to deal with foreign religious practices. At that time, the government specifically supports the Dutch Reformed Church, declaring it the official “public” church. However, the idea of a “liberty of conscience” is gaining popularity. The Dutch enjoy the notion of practicing as they please in private without the fear of religious persecution. Many petitions against his rulings are made, notably the Flushing Remonstrance, and temporarily work, but Stuyvasent’s law continues to prevail. It is not until John Bowne persuades the directors of the Dutch West India Company that Stuyvasent is forced to make New Netherland’s toleration policy in line with Amsterdam’s.

As Jaffe notes, “the Dutch idea of freedom of conscience played a role in creating a climate of toleration that persisted even after New Netherland became New York in 1664.” Not only does this statement foreshadow New York City becoming the most diverse settlement in the country in terms of religion, etc., but also marks the beginning of the struggles to come in order to gain complete religious freedom in the United States. This idea that arises in the early 17^th century allows people to question and fight for their beliefs for many years to come and to this day.

Fast forwarding to the signing of the Constitution and the addition of the Bill of Rights, the government addresses religious freedom. The first three lines of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This sounds ideal, but what meaning do these words actually hold? The United States Courts gives a quick and thorough explanation of the meaning and origins of this amendment, allowing individuals to better understand what rights it provides. Furthermore, both sites provide the straight forward claim that people have the right to establish and exercise their own faith.

It is essential to grasp the two major parts of the first amendment concerning religion — the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Firstly, “the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion.” Noticing the quotation marks around establishing, the reader can assume that there is some ambiguity in the term. Basically, its meaning changes over time. Back then, “establishing” referred to the creation of state-sponsored churches. The government was not allowed to declare or financially support a national religion. However, now, it goes beyond that. Its definition is mainly based off of the rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which allows the government to assist religion under certain conditions. As long the purpose is secular, neither prohibiting nor inhibiting religion, and is not interfering between church and state, it is valid.

Pertaining to this topic is the debate over school-sponsored prayer. In the case of Engel v. Vitale (1962), the court rules this to violate the Establishment Clause. Although highly argued, the decision allows students of all distinct backgrounds to attend public school and worship as they please. Baruch College is a great example of a government-funded university that is extremely diverse in faiths, yet all are embraced and have a place to practice. This carries into the second division of the first amendment, which is the Free Exercise Clause.

While some may claim this to be contradictory of the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause “protects citizens’ right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a “public morals” or a “compelling” governmental interest.” Essentially, American citizens have the right to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. However, it gets tricky because the clause does allow for violation of general laws due to religious reasons, which technically means the government is giving special recognition to certain religions, but nevertheless, this law is fair. As seen in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme Court does prioritize health and safety over religious beliefs by ruling children must receive necessary vaccinations, regardless of faith.

Keeping with the discussion about activism in New York, both the origins of religious persecuation/toleration and the First Amendment prove how far people will go to stand with their beliefs. Analyzing these two texts allows readers to to dig deeper into times before religious freedom and understand the struggles and feats that are made and continued to be. From the Quakers to Supreme Court cases, religious freedom shows to be significant in our country, especially New York City, which is considered a melting pot of theologies.

When approaching these three poems, in order to truly understand and analyze them, I think about the time these poems were published and what was going on at that time. The first poem I read was “I Hear America Singing” by Walt Whitman. This poem was published in 1860 and acknowledges different common men in America, their jobs, and the pride they have in their jobs. During this time, slavery was a big issue in America. At the same time, however, Lincoln was nominated president and stood with the anti slavery movement. This causes more people to gain jobs while being proud of their work. Although the different men and women have different tasks, they each “sing” with pride their work. In addition, the Industrial Revolution was a big part of this time which creates another sense of patriotism through the people of America because of its great advancements. “I, too” by Langston Hughes was published in 1926. This is a time where many people are moving out of their farms to live in cities, New York City being a popular place among people who are planning to move because of its different communities. The 1920s is a decade of change because of how many people are starting to be consumers instead of farming what they need for themselves and being satisfied with that. America becomes a world power because of this, and American culture is now seen being spread throughout the whole world. Not only that, but different races become more confident in their work and potential, due to events happening in New York such as the Harlem Renaissance. In this poem, Langston Hughes describes that although “I am the darker brother”, he declares that soon he will be the wealthy one at the table having the most power rather than the servant (2). People in America are clearly now starting to become confident and patriotic regardless of their race. They believe in themselves, something that was not seen when African Americans were under slavery. “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus was published in 1883. Around this time we know the second industrial revolution occurred which contained the advancements of electricity and steel. As Lazarus describes “a mighty woman with a torch” I automatically think of the Statue of Liberty (4). In the poem, Lazarus also describes this woman as a welcoming figure to many people coming in from different countries specifically looking for religious freedom and economic opportunity. The author of this poem clearly believes that America is the place where anyone should come to because of its reputation of making dreams happen. Not just America, but throughout the entire world, New York is seen as the prominent city where work happens and anything can get done.

Although these three poems were all written at different times, they all carry a common theme. The theme of being patriotic and open to every race is seen in all three of these poems. Instead of being labeled as where you came from or who your grandparents were, we now are all labeled as one, Americans. Americans who have the same pride for the same country. Hughes is aware that his race is different than the people who he is serving, however he realizes that they are both in America, where everyone now has the same chance at being successful, especially in the 1920s. Whitman describes different jobs belonging to different people however connects them in their shared love and pride for working in America. Lazarus is patriotic herself, as she describes the Statue of Liberty that is going to be given to America soon which will ultimately let anyone in and give everyone the same chance. She explains that the Statue will constantly cry, “Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” (13-14). The golden door is a symbol of America in this description. All of these authors were raised in New York, which says a lot about their perspective on work and change in America, since New York was a prominent place for immigrants to settle and find opportunity.

Michelle Nazar M.N