Author: Syeda Kamal

This is the first time I’ve kept a journal and weekly updated it. After I read a good novel or watch a decent movie, I often feel the need to talk about it to someone; I compare journaling to that. Writing out my thoughts satisfies that feeling. Personally, for the most part, I’ve enjoyed the idea writing out fresh thoughts on a piece of work. I’ve learned that it also helps me better understand and retain what I have read.

I do not think journaling is like note-taking. Note-taking is mostly objective writing, based on texts. However, my journal entries express my thoughts over a subject. Note-taking often gets tedious, and is something I get bored of. However, journaling is more interesting because I am expressing my, often very opinionated, thoughts on a topic.

Looking over my journal entries, I noticed some similarities with the way I write. The structure of my writing is mostly the same. Given that this is free-writing, I often do not fix up or change anything after I write it, other than for summaries. The assignments that I dislike the most are the summaries. They tend to be the longest as I often am conflicted with what to leave out. They also feel similar to note-taking and are certainly the most tiresome. The entry I liked the best was the one for Bread Givers, in which we had to compare Sara and her father. I really enjoyed the novel which is why I loved writing about it.

I actually do not like quite a few of the journal entries I’ve written. At some points, many of them seem like texts written on a whim that have not been looked over at all. At other points, it seems as though I was not properly able to create a flow and am jumping from topic to topic. Also, a few of them seem rushed and I know they could have been better written, had I spent more time on them. However, as I write more and more entries, I am getting more used to them and they do seem to be getting better. Overall, although at some points it does just seem to get tedious, I do enjoy journaling.

The Arrival by Shaun Tan, is a novel told through a series of illustrious black and white images. It depicts the journey of a man settling in a foreign country. The protagonist is leaving his country and his wife and daughter likely in hopes for a better future. The protagonist arrives at this new country and is an unfamiliar environment, barely able to communicate. The front cover symbolizes his bewilderment in the new environment as he stares at a strange animal baffled by it. This animal, which he meets once he finds an apartment, accompanies him throughout the novel. The protagonist’s inability to communicate is first shown in an amusing way when he is at customs and does not understand what he is being asked and gestures wildly with perplexing facial expressions.

The book shows many surreal things, such as the structure of the buildings, the animals, the language and the flying ships. These images stand to show the unfamiliarity immigrants often feel in a new country. The land itself seems odd. In this novel, Shaun Tan represents the story of many foreigners as they enter a new country when they are well acquainted with the language of and customs of the country. Everything seems new in a place unknown. To the protagonist, even the light bulb seems new as he lightly taps it not knowing what it is. Also, when he tries to put up a sign, he ends up putting it upside down as he is unable to read the words. This journey is not easy for him. However, with the kindness of strangers and other immigrants that he meets who have fled various difficult situations, he is able to get basic things such as food, and later on, a job.

The one thing that seems to keep the protagonist going even through his hardships is the remembrance of his family. Through the depiction of the man’s native country as being overshadowed by dragon tails, one can assume that the situation in his country is not safe. Therefore, even with the problems in his new country he continues to strive for better. He often looks at the portrait of his wife and daughter longingly and is visibly happy when they arrive. In the very end of the novel, the man’s daughter is shown giving directions to presumably a foreigner. This perfectly shows the cycle of a foreigner works: you enter the country as a foreigner and receive help from the natives of the country, settle down and become a native, and then serve as a guide to another foreigner.

In Alger’s novel, Ragged Dick, he shows his view of New York, which is that people are able to shine above from little. Alger’s book showed that it was possible to break barriers, and to rise, supporting the rag-to-riches myth. Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Street shows the other side of this. In his novel, the character of Maggie, who he describes as capable of rising above if given the chance, is unable to do so due to circumstances and is dragged to prostitution, despair and death.

New York during the time the novels took place was known as “Empire City”, the nation’s largest and grandest metropolis. It was a master of finance, trade, and industry. It was also an attraction for many immigrants, and served as an economic market for the world. However, New York was also very corrupt. Many people tried to bring order to the “distended society” but mostly in vain. According to Hewitt, a respectable mayor, the city was imperialistically destined to succeed naturally; it only depended on its inhabitants whether they allowed it or not. Hewitt’s opponent, Henry George was less emphatic than Hewitt. He thought that with the increasing wealth, there was a struggle of the deepest poverty, struggle for existence, and idleness. He warned that if the problems were not addressed then there would soon be people on the streets and under such circumstances, progress is not real.

Mark Twain coined this time the “Gilded Age”, a time where greed was the token of realm but everything that shined was not gold. He also wrote a story that questioned the standing idea of the time that the rich were deserving and that the poor were undeserving and inferior. The social contract at the time was defined in means of survival of the fittest and material wealth, with many supporting Social Darwinism.

Economically, the city made many accomplishments. However, most of the methods used to create huge dominating businesses were unpleasant, with  owners being called “robber barons”. Robber barons of the time include Rockefeller (oil), Vanderbilt (railroads), and Carnegie (steel), among others. With many of these robber barons establishing their businesses on Wall St, Wall St. became the home for new wealthy businesses.  Rockefeller stood as an example of the rag to riches myth. He believed in Social Darwinism and thought that it was normal to eliminate competitors.

Rockefeller’s competition endangered so many businesses that people and the government began to reassess the social contract and government regulation. They began to put regulations on these trusts. Initial regulations were weak and trusts continued to grow, specifically in NY. In 1892, in fact, 1/3 of millionaire’s lived in NY. Economically, NY was so strong that it was called “the center around which other regional metropolises orbited, the great organizer of American commerce.”

With economic progress, the city also progressed physically with gas, electricity, railroads, mansions, and bridges. The majestic Brooklyn Bridge was an example of the progress and served as an urban symbol. Another great icon of the time was the statue of liberty, which of course became America’s symbol of freedom. The growth of the city however, did not come without corruption. In fact, with the Tweed Ring incident, it earned the title as “the worst governed city in the world.”

William Tweed emerged as a powerful man in the Gilded Ade, who provided a functioning, but corrupt, political system to the City. He had served various elected and appointed positions and because of his connections (and access to bribes and gifts), he was able to dominate the Democratic party and Tammany Hall. He represented the City’s shift from only patrician politicians to one open to middle class men. While he promoted democracy, he was also very corrupt. He had friendly judges naturalize new immigrants for votes, have people vote under different names, and have gangs sent out for opposition voters.  However, even though he was corrupt, Tweed did have pro-city bills passed. He secured allocations for schools, public baths, hospital and many other things. He also made a lot of money through his empire, and his extravagance sometimes offended New Yorkers.

Eventually, due to corruption, a movement began within Tammany and soon enough violence erupted on the streets.With the Orange Riot of 1871, in which Nativist attitudes of the 40’s and 50’s resurfaced specifically between the Catholic Irish and Irish Protestants, Tweed was no longer in control. This occurred because of Tweed’s failure to keep his Irish Catholic supporters. A year later, before an anti Irish Catholic parade of the Irish protestants, Tammany feared that a riot would break out. He therefore tried to stop the parade but in vain. The parade carried out with 1500 policemen on all side of the Protestants. Irish Catholics proceeded to throw stones and bottles at the marchers. Soon enough, the soldiers (mostly Catholic) began to fire. Bloodshed ensued and many casualties were taken. It was called the Tammany riots. Tweed’s corruption was finally proven when Tammany Ring’s bookkeeper passed away and the new bookkeeper gave Tweed’s the accounts to New York Times.

Eventually Tweed was arrested for all his actions and sent to jail where he stayed till death. Tweed showed to Americans that the powerful men of the Gilded Age were mostly all corrupt and that greed could negatively affect democracy.

The Gilded Age, although a victim of corruption, was not only a time of greed and disinterest in human suffering. Many were concerned of the “Social Question” and opted to help the poor. Even well-to-do influential New Yorkers decided to help. One of the main people who played a role in the urban problems was Jacob Riis. He was a journalist who took graphic photographs of the suffering he saw in the Five Points. Asking New York, “What are you going to do about it?”. Many different reforms began to take place as a result of Riis’s urging. In 1901, NY became the first city to require schooling for children under 12.

Riis also spoke against the evil of color causing Blacks to stand up for themselves. They fought against segregated schooling and won in 1900, when Roosevelt signed a desegregating school law for the state. During this time the upper classes were also learning about the urban problems. Lee Lowell serves as a perfect example of this. She was a woman from an upper class family who dedicated her life to charity and helping others. She advocated for a living wage, joined the Social Reform Club, and helped Riis in a children aid program among other things. She also served as the president of the New York Consumer League, which helped middle and upper class women boycott stores that exploited female workers.

Settlement Houses also came through and were supported by mostly upper and middle class men. Organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Ethical Culture Society also emerged. Due to the generosity of the rich, the City soon earned the name the “most charitable city in the world”. Riis called this time “the awakening”.

Through the Gilded Age people learned that they cannot only rely on themselves, but also had to rely on each other. This marked the transition from individual action to collective action. New York began to form labor unions. They stood behind the idea that no one would help them if they didn’t help themselves.On January, 1874, they formed a mass meeting from Tomspkins Square Park. Police withdrew permission of the rally at the last minute, and 1600 of them peppered the rally. The event turned violent with the police attacking the people rallying. Some people praised the police for saving NY from the riot, while many others were upset with police brutality. Three years later, police brutality appeared again when people planned for a national railroad strike. Henry Ward Beecher, also known as Brooklyn’s preacher, spoke harshly of activists seeking better pay. He said that people should be certainly given enough to live, but that a dollar a day was enough.

During this time, Samuel Gompers emerged as the nation’s leading labor organizer after playing part in the cigar makers’ strike. He believed that strikes were crucial for self advancement. He also believed that only coordinated protest and organization by workers themselves would be effective.

Labor activism began to surge, with 1200 strikes in NY city alone in 1886. Activists fought to reduce long shifts specifically. Central Labor Union was one of the large union leagues that formed. They organized walks and blocked roads and also participated in boycotts. The state responded with orders to arrest leaders and rioters on the basis of “conspiracy against trade”. Employers also called on police to help them against rioters.

CLU then turned to politic with Henry George as their candidate for mayor. George spoke for a better government, social justice and the abolition of industrial slavery. Tammany and the Democrats in turn supported Abram Hewitt. Through Tammany’s manipulation of the polls, Hewitt ended up winning. However, George was deeply respected for his campaign in and out of the US. Also after the election, more labor candidates entered politics, running for various offices. There were so many of them, that soon enough Tammany shifted to being pro-labor and reaching out to labor.

However, the labor’s successes were brief, as Gompers had once predicted that they would be due to the divisions between the people fighting for its control. Gompers was determined to separate the unions from politics. He began the American Federation of Labor, also known as the most important labor organization in American history.

Due to increased child labor in the late 19th century, newsboys began to speak up for themselves. In 1899, they met at City Hall Park and called a strike. While their organization did not last, the boys were successful for four major reasons. These reasons were that they were able to cooperate due to an established community, the gained sympathy of adults, they were able to spread to the city, and lastly because they had newspapers covering them. Riis had always supported betterment for children as he knew that they would be the adults of the future.

One of the scenes from the movie that were particularly striking was the scene where Kay tells Michael that she wants to leave and take their children with her. 

The scene begins with Kay walking into a room. The room, compared to many others in the movie is actually well-lit with lamps (and fully furnished). The background behind Kay is black and white. The camera initially follows Kay and gives a one shot of Michael before turning back to Kay. It then switches to reverse shot, frequently switching between the two. The camera then proceeds to follow Michael, using a medium body shot, as he moves around the room, while Kay stands at one place. Michael seems to have the upper hand in this relationship. 

Amidst their conversation, the camera switches to one out of the room showing their daughter playing and laughing in the hallway. The innocence of the child is striking as she is clueless of what is happening between her parents. A boy, presumably Anthony, is simply standing against the wall. Perhaps he knows what is happening. As we see the girl playing, we also hear the offscreen dialogue between Kay and Michael getting more and more heated. We hear Michael yelling “You’re my wife, they’re my children, I love you, I won’t allow [you to leave].” The force with which he tries to convince Kay of his love is almost a bit amusing. 

As the camera switches back to the one in the room, we see Michael and Kay arguing. After a brief pause, Michael tries to explains to Kay that he will not let the family break apart. He mentions that he knows in time she will be thankful for the decision he’s making of not letting her go. He also says that he knows she blames him for losing the baby but that he will make it up to her and with time things will get better. Michael’s expressions show that he is serious about this and he genuinely does not want to let her or the children go. Kay, on the other hand, has already made up her mind. Michael’s words, if anything, only agitate her. After Michael finishes, Kay, while shaking her head, tells him “Michael you are blind. It wasn’t a miscarriage, it was an abortion.” The changes in Michael’s facial expression are immediate. They change from almost the tenderness with which he was trying to explain himself to disbelief and anger. He stares at her without uttering a word. She proceeds to tell him that she does not want to bring any child of his into the world and calls their marriage unholy and evil. As the camera cuts to Michael, he is visibly furious. Out of anger he then lunges towards her with so much force that he pushes the sofa in front of him to the floor and Kay to the couch behind her. He then tells Kay “you won’t take my children”, to which she responds in an almost hushed voice, “they’re my children too”. 

This scene shows a lot about Michael as a person. Michael is so engrossed in himself that he does not understand what Kay is saying when she says that she wants to leave. He seems to be in denial and tells her that he will change, even though it is fairly clear that she has already made up her mind. It is understandable that Kay does not want her children leaving in the conditions and insecurity that Michael is in. When Kay reveals that she aborted the child, Michael is aghast, as expected. When he lashes out towards Kay, it is a sign of how powerless and helpless he feels upon hearing what really happened. 

Sara and her father have many clashes throughout the novel. Sara, visibly, does not appreciate the way her father commands her family. She despises how he ruins her sisters’ lives, yet still believes in his stubborn in his ways. Even with all her resentment towards him, she continues to live under him, until he buys an unsuccessful business. This is when she decides to leave her home. However, even though Sara feels so much resentment towards her father, there are a few similarities in her and her father’s personalities.

The biggest similarity between the Sarah and her father is their strong will and devotion. Reb Smolinsky is fully dedicated to religion. He does not see much other than the words of the Book he follows. In his devotion to religion, Smolinsky pays little attention to the problems in his home and leaves financial burdens on his wife and daughters. Just as her father is devoted to religion, Sara feels a longing to be independent and educated. Even with all the hardships that come her way, she has does not back down from her goal. While her father goes to the extent of disowning her because of her ambitions, Sara does not back down. Because of her strong will, Sara is called “blood and iron” by her father.

At times, their strong wills do translate to useless stubbornness and selfishness. Smolinsky’s stubbornness is shown in his insistence that he runs the house. He insists upon making all the decisions in the house even though he often makes costly mistakes. Sara’s stubbornness shows when she leaves her home. She does not want to put up with her father and decides that she will not do so. Even though she has no other definite residence and lives in an incredibly patriarchal society, her decision is final. Sara’s action was also a bit selfish. While many may think she was doing what was necessary for her freedom, Sara does end up leaving her poor mother alone to carry financial burdens and to deal with Smolinsky.