Coney Island Primary Sources

I wish the entire book by Lilly Daché was included, as I would have loved to learn more about her background. When did she come to America? Why did she leave Paris? Did she intend to stay here forever? It was a great insight to how Coney Island affected the everyday person. She talked about how she knew that she knew she should not be doing what she was, but did not care. It gave her a chance to live her life she way she wanted to live it, not the way other people wanted her to live it. She said she “felt wicked but happy.” Is happiness worth it? Worth it to throw away everything? Go against your parents’ wishes and your values?

For someone who has given a lot a thought about what happiness is and what it means, even I don’t feel comfortable making this call. I know what it is like to be miserable all the time, but at least I stayed true to myself and what I believed. My dream is to know what pure happiness feels like, but I do not know if I could lose myself in the process. Such a hard decision. I would have avoided it completely.

Amusing the Million Part 2

There were so many things about Coney Island that attracted people from all over. It was the precursor to entertainment as we know it today. From someone who does not enjoy rides at carnivals, you have to admit that they are pretty cool. Imagine seeing a Ferris Wheel for the first time – right after it was invented. It must have been breath taking. Same with roller coasters. Something so dangerous, but that is where the thrill comes from. I wonder if I would have taken a leap of faith and gone on these rides, out of pure amazement.

However, the negative things of Coney Island might have outweighed the positive things. It promoted gambling, prostitution, and throwing away of the morals on which people were raised. Once again, I wonder if the entertainment was worth the risk. I love the pictures that the author added to this section of the book, comparing how Coney Island changed over the years. They were not posed, editorial pictures like those of Riis’, they were natural, spontaneous, and unexpected. They literally captured a moment of these people’s lives. The changes are so drastic, that it is amazing that it happened in such a short amount of time. Coney Island was truly a great power in this culture, showing the influence of entertainment on the masses. What would our world be like today if Coney Island had never existed? Would we still be living in the Victorian Era, or would something new just take its place?

Amusing the Million Part 1

Around the turn of the century, society tried to hold on to their Victorian morals, but the times changed too much and this would not be possible for very long. If I lived during this time, I would definitely be in the group trying to maintain the Victorian values. I try to maintain these even today. As the overall culture of New York, and thus America began to change, only the working class and the immigrants could maintain what they were raised on. As the technology of the times increased, new forms of entertainment began. My personal favorite of these entertainment contributions was the invention of the movie. Where would I be today if it were not for movies? And literature?

This new entertainment created a new type of culture, which led to Coney Island. The times called for something that had never been seen before, and an amusement park was just that. Coney Island was the Disney World of 1900, something so revolutionary that people flocked to experience it. Everyone wanted a taste of it. Would you have gone to Coney Island if you lived then? Would you have planned a family trip, or gone with friends? Would it change your values? Would you risk it?

Coney Island was revolutionary in that it provided entertainment for everyone. People of all ages and social classes and ethnic backgrounds could come and have fun. Everyone was blind to each other, as the goal was just to relax and have fun. The contribution that Coney Island made to American culture is amazing, but was it a positive or a negative one?

How the Other Half Lives - 3rd Reading

It is unfortunate that the law could only do so much to help the tenement problem. However, this had to be expected. The people need to do their part as well. Hence, why Riis wrote this book.

I am amazed that the law paid attention enough to make a significant contribution to changing the tenements. The fact that they even realized a problem in the first place. So often, those high up choose to ignore the troubles of others, much less those below them.

People need a place to live comfortably. This is such a simple fact that it is often overlooked. Although the tenements provide housing to those who cannot go anywhere else, it is just a house, not a home. A home is a place to go and relax, feel comfortable and safe, and just be you. My room is my go to place to feel comfortable. I could not imagine a life where I would not have that security. But that is how the people in the tenements lived. It only makes sense that they should be helped, as they are people too. “The causes that operate to obstruct efforts to better the lot of the tenement population are, in our day, largely found among the tenants themselves. This is true particularly of the poorest. They are shiftless, destructive, and stupid; in a word, they are what the tenements have made them.” These people do not have the money to help themselves, which is where the upper classes come in. Over time, the divide between the upper and lower class continues to grow. If the upper class helped the lower class, as should be their duty to society, culture could potentially level itself out. But who is to blame for this whole situation in the first place? The immigrants, the poor, the rich, the law? Is it possible to have prevented this in the first place?

How the Other Half Lives - 2nd Reading

These chapters in How the Other Half Lives details the lives of different ethnic groups living in the tenements. It covers the Chinese, Jewish, Bohemians, and Blacks. They created their own areas where they could continue living their own culture. Was this by choice, or was their no other way? Was it possible to break the racial barrier, or did they have no choice?

There are both pros and cons of living divided by ethnicity. They could maintain their own cultural traditions. There was no one to force them to westernize or Americanize, because they were surrounded by their own kind. This did not make it easy for them though. Where they lived did not help them gain respect of the “white society.” This certainly raised awareness that there were more than just poor white people living in the tenements. Why did Riis choose to dedicate separate chapters to this? And why the groups that he chose? What did he plan to accomplish from this?

The Mirror with a Memory

This article opens with the quote “Is a photograph true to nature itself, or is it possible to lie with a camera?” (203). It’s so thought provoking. Especially since the camera in Riis’ time required ten minutes to set up, he had time to pose the picture however he wanted to. Did he abuse this power for his advantage? Riis certainly had good intentions trying to reveal the lives of those living in the tenements, but did he use their lives to get further as a journalist?

Think about photographs today. When was the last photograph you saw that has not been edited on Photoshop? Where was this photograph? Probably not in a magazine. Or any sort of advertisement. Which poses the question: If photographs were left unedited, would anyone even pay attention to them? We are surrounded by lies from advertising companies all over the world, who believe that we will not buy their products if their photographs are not retouched. The sad thing is that they are probably right.

I do not understand why Riis hid his work as a photographer from his family. If he was truly a great photographer, as many people thought, was he not proud of his work? Why would be not share that pride with the ones he loved? Riis’ photojournalism was clearly very important to him, as he published a book on it, but it is sad to think that his family did not realize this passion of his because he never told them. Would you tell someone if you were truly passionate about something?

Introduction to the Tenements

“‘One half of the world does not know how the other half lives’” (1). I cannot stop thinking about how powerful this quote is. It is so simple, but means so much. What I took from this is that the people are always looking up. They watch the lives of people above them, but not of people below them. They have a sense of superiority, and will not lower themselves to even associate with those living worse than they are, even though people should be helping those less fortunate than themselves.

I think Jacob Riis’ book How the Other Half Lives really helped to alert the upper classes how the lower classes lived. They no longer could deny what was put into print. There was proof that there were many people living in tenements, which by no standards was an adequate place of living. “If Riis is known as one of America’s greatest writers of social reform, he is equally known as one of America’s important photographers” (vii). Riis’ choice of adding photography to his book helped his case tremendously. As most upper class people would not even think of visiting the tenements, they were still able to see what life was like through Riis’ pictures. If you lived in this time, would you have followed Riis’ book and helped?

“He not only substantiated his case against the tenements – with photographs duplicating conditions to the last wrinkle – but he also was among the first to show the power of photography as a journalistic weapon” (viii). Think about how much photography is a huge part of journalism today. Photographs are everywhere in our society today, thanks to the great advances of technology since Riis’ day. There are photographs on billboards, in magazines, on the internet. There is no escaping them. If Riis’ book had never been published, would the true power of photography ever be discovered?

Ragged Dick Supplement Readings

During this time, the children of New York City were living in terrible conditions. Most were orphans, but even the ones who had families were destitute. Unfortunately, many of these children were criminals. But whom do we place the blame on? For the children that had families, do we blame their parents? Or are they simply a product of their environment? These children grew up lying, swearing, and smoking because they were never able to learn what was right. They were forced to do whatever they could to survive – to be brave and face the world.

As I was reading this, I realized that it made sense for the character of Dick to represent these children, as they were a large part of New York’s society and deserved more attention that they had. As I learned in English class in eleventh grade, a rags to riches tale fails if there are parents. The heroic pattern needs the hero to come from a troubled background so that he can overcome adversity and grow stronger. Parents always get in the way of a child going on an adventure on their own.

“The major portion are boys rapidly preparing for the almshouse, prisons, and gallows; but hundreds are girls, who have before them the darker horror of prostitution as well as those appliances of civilization for the care or repression of the pauperism and lawlessness which it created.” (142). So what happened to all the girls? Why did Alger choose to simply cut them out of his novel? Surely if Dick were real, he would have made friends with girls on the streets as well. Was it because he knew his audience of young boys, and wrote simply to what they wanted?

As horrible as the orphan trains were, I can see the reasons behind their decisions. The government believed it was a way to get rid of the criminals on the streets to decrease the crime rate in the city. Parents sent their children as attempt to give them a better life and hope for better financial stability. While some children were afraid to leave their families, others were excited to escape the city and start new. However, the orphan trains were much worse than they first believed. If the public knew about this, would they still have been as desperate to send the children?

Ragged Dick Chapters 12-27

The conclusion of Dick’s story is a happy one. He rises up in society and is offered a better job. He refers to himself formally and professionally as “Dick Hunter” instead of “Ragged Dick” – a change in names that reminds me of the circulation of Cathy’s names in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. Anyway, I could not help but feel disappointed over that course that the story took. I enjoyed the book overall, but I felt as if too much of Dick’s journey was due to luck instead of his motivation and ambition.

Dick’s clothing did the talking instead of his character. However, the New York of this time really was this shallow, based everything on people’s appearances, and looked no further. Mr. Whitney from the first half of the novel is the exception.

Dick does have his head on straight, knows right from wrong, and sets a goal for himself to become more respectable in the eyes of society. He knows that “it’s mean to cheat and steal” (63), as opposed to his counterpart Micky Maguire, a degrading portrayal of the Irish immigrants of the time, recalling what we learned from out study of the New York draft riots and from watching Gangs of New York. This feeling of superiority to the Irish was a common thought of the time.

I loved the addition of the character of Fosdick. It was nice to see someone with book smarts to contrast to Dick’s street smarts. He became like a brother to Dick. Instead of Dick having to just look out for himself, he learns the importance of friendship. This is an excellent test of his character.

What bothered me most was Dick’s determination to help every single person that he met. I thought he would give his fortune away by the end of the novel. I was impressed by his generosity, but it soon became suffocating.

There were some specific lines that I quite enjoyed, such as; “Dick had gained something more valuable that money” (86), showing his growth as a person, and “the bitterness of a reverse of circumstances” (92), which was beautifully stated. Overall, how realistic was this Cinderella “rags-to-riches” talk? Is it a lesson to young boys of the time, or just a fantasy?

Ragged Dick Chapter 1-11

Horatio Alger’s novel Ragged Dick tells the story of the life of a young man named “Ragged” Dick growing up in New York in the 1860s. The adjective “ragged” in front of his name refers to the appearance of his clothing. He makes his living as a bootblack. However, I was surprised and pleased to hear that his character was worthy of greater things.

Alger begins his book by letting the reader know of Dick’s flaws. “He swore sometimes, and now and then he played tricks upon unsophisticated boys from the country or gave a wrong direction to honest old gentlemen unused to the city” (5). Dick was also extravagant with his money, and often went to the theatre, and took pleasure in smoking. I appreciated the fact that Alger made a point of Dick not being perfect – a great lesson for his intended audience of young men.

The reader soon learns that Dick is trustworthy, honest, caring, and dependable. Although luck brought him upon the wealthy and higher class Frank and Mr. Whitney, Dick’s ambition gained him his new appearance and respect from the world around him. Will his store follow the pattern of a tragedy? Will Dick’s ambition and newfound pride lead him to downfall? How will Dick and Frank’s new friendship affect them both?

One thing I cannot get out of my mind is what the introduction to the novel said about Alger’s life. His career as a priest was ended as he showed too much affection towards young boys. Is he an author to be trusted? Is he biased in writing a novel about a young boy? How realistic is his story going to be?

Draft Riots Reading 3

The New York Draft Riots lasted for five days. I did a lot of thinking as to what five days actually means. Five days is the length of a school or work week. Five is my dad’s favorite number, and the name of a very popular perfume by Coco Chanel. Mundane, simple, small. However, five is also the highest and most dangerous classification of hurricanes and tornadoes. Although five days is an insignificant amount of time, the five days of the New York Draft Riots were “the most destructive episode of urban civil unrest in American History.” It turned ordinary citizens into monsters. The “official” death toll was listed at 119. One hundred and nineteen innocent lives lost over the course of five very long days in the lives of those affected by the riots.

However, records show that the death toll might have actually been much higher. Possibly even more than 1000. How is it that the numbers could be so off? It is a big difference between 25 dead each day of the riots, to 200 dead. Is the lack of resources of the 1800’s really an excuse as to why there is such a difference in numbers?

I was also surprised to hear that the government decided to stay out of thee conflict. Was this a good move? Would have it been better for both the Republicans and Democrats to get involved to clean up the mess? After the draft riots were over and they held a lottery for the draft, the government brought in the military. “With such a military presence, the lottery proceeded peaceably.” So why was there no military in the first place?

Also, did they really expect that people would volunteer for the draft after the riots were over? The public made it clear that they did not want to join the service. Once they implemented the rule that you did not have to fight if you did not want to “only two had actually joined the Union Army.” No surprise there.

Once again, I must touch upon the irony of this whole situation. Unfortunately, the draft riots left a tragic irony over the North. African Americans fled in fear after the riots were over – but where could they go? The North should have been a safe haven for them, especially after the struggle to gain freedom in the South and the coldness they were met with after they got it. However, “African Americans New Yorkers were harshly reminded that the urban North did not necessarily provide safe haven from racial violence.” How sad that the African Americans had to suffer simply for being an easy target. All in all, could this have been avoided? Or would the only way to avoid the African Americans being lost in both the North and the South would be to not free them – and thus not starting the Civil War?

Draft Riots Reading 2

Bias. Ever since we had first saw pictures from Harper’s Weekly, I have been curious to learn more about them. I did not realize that there was such a large scale between the political parties of the time. The Democrats saw the draft riots as “legitimate protests by working people against their loss of rights and the inequalities of the new draft law,” while the Republicans saw them as “a much more insidious challenge to the social order and urged ‘an immediate and terrible’ federal reaction to quell the disturbance.” It did not surprise me, then, to learn that Harper’s Weekly supported the side of the Republicans. They viewed the Irish and the rioters in such a negative light that they gave rise to the ideas that they were incredibly violent and savage. They also took the low road and showed Irish men beating a helpless black man and his young daughter. People will do anything as long as cute children are involved, as seen in many advertisements today. This video has recently gone viral (http://www.urlesque.com/2010/09/13/cute-girl-catchy-dance/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl8%7Csec3_lnk3%7C170285) showing a cute young girl dancing, and then to have everyone around her join in. In actuality, they are selling you a cell phone. Does this really work? Now and then? And why can’t people see through this?

Colonel Henry O’Brien was violently murdered by the Irish during the draft riots. That part is true. However, comparing pictures from competing newspapers sheds light on what you should believe and look at when trying to determine what actually happened. Once again, Harper’s Weekly made the Irish look evil, as Colonel O’Brien was helpless. However, the less biased Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper showed him as a less weak man, not being attacked by a mob but by a few people. So which one do we believe? Now, we know how biased Harper’s Weekly was against the Irish and for the Republicans. Were people aware of how twisted their view was back then? I would guess not, as they bought into what was being said. In actuality, O’Brien was killed in revenge for having killed a woman and her child earlier. Both cartoons left that out.

This was also the first mention of women being involved in the riots. I honestly did not think that women would be out in the streets fighting at this time, but now that I reflect upon it more, it makes sense. They would lose the men they loved to the drafts. Husbands, brothers, fathers, friends. Not only did the women participate, they were as violent and full of rage as the men were. Honestly, I cannot blame them. If I were in that situation, I would have fought too. Would you?

What did surprise me was how the rioters went after easy targets – mainly the wealthy New Yorkers and the Africans Americans. They were not prepared to fight back, the wealthy were hated for being able to pay their way out of the draft, and the African Americans were blamed for having started the war. “As long as rioting wracked the city, African Americans would be targeted by the rioters.” The second day confirmed that there would be no stopping the rioters, and the cause again the draft was deep in their minds and hearts. I was impressed, however, with the fact that the money that was given to the government to pay away the draft was used to rebuilt the places that the mob destroyed. I don’t think that the riots should have lasted as long as they did, because the political leaders spent their time figuring out how to stop the riots. Why did they have nothing prepared?

Draft Riots Reading 1

After Martin Scorcese’s 2002 film Gangs of New York was released, it received ten Academy Award nominations. It grossed almost two hundred million dollars worldwide and received many positive reviews.  Gangs of New York is undeniably a great film, interlacing beautiful cinematography with outstanding performances by the actors. However, how many people look beyond this? Gangs of New York is not a made up story – it is based on actual events. Although an entertaining film, it is not entertaining to think about the blood bath that was the Draft Riots of New York City.

The Draft Riots were the bloodiest civil disturbance in New York. This also took place during the Civil War, the bloodiest event in American history. The 1860’s were not a joyful time for our country. When the riots occurred, people did not care to focus on the reasons behind the riots, but they focused on the fact that the riots were happening themselves and all of the violence that came with them. It gave the people of the country something to talk about other than the fight over slavery. According to the article, “There would have been no draft but for the war – there would have been no war but for slavery.” This statement implies that if slavery never existed, then the Civil War would have never happened, and thus no one would be drafted, and there would be no riots. But is it reasonable to play “what if”? Just because there was no slavery, does not mean that a war would have never started. There were plenty of disagreements in creating this country other than slavery. The most important thing we can learn about history is that we cannot look at the past through a present lens. Different eras leave different views of history, as views of the world change over time.

Only recently have the motivations and causes of the draft riots have been studied. My question is: why has no one looked at this sooner? Personally, I find the other side of a story to be very interesting. Looking at things from one perspective provides an unfinished look at history. I remember when I went to see the musical Wicked for the first time. I felt ashamed that I was naïve and did not look at the reasons as to why the Wicked Witch was evil. There are always reasons behind a person’s actions. Maybe they are not as evil or violent as they seem on the surface. Ever since then, I refuse to accept just one side – everyone’s perspective is important.

The rioters used the street as their stage to let the world know what they believed in and what they stood for. The cities allowed them the witnesses they needed to get their voices heard. One of the drawings showed rioters addressing the crowd from the roof of a building. It shows that they gathered a following by standing on pedestals and preaching their ideas. As the newspapers and journals drew the rioters as barbarians, barely human, and unattractive, they refused to acknowledge that there was another reason behind their fighting other than just causing violence. I strongly believe it is important to stand up for what you believe in. However, is it honorable to stand up for what you believe in if it leads to violence and destruction?

Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts - Sam Wineburg

Our bodies are biologically designed to learn from the past - so why is it so difficult for us to appreciate history? Psychologists study the effects of conditioning, a form of learning, on humans. Based on our experiences, we will act accordingly when the situation arises in the future. Conditioning is literally learning from the past, and we as humans condition others and ourselves every day. Because we are biologically disposed to learn from our own past, it makes it that much harder to learn about others’ pasts because we must remove ourselves from where we feel safe in the present and view the situation from a foreign place: through someone else’s eyes. This is the only way to accurately look at history. If we attempt to view history through modern day terms and ideas, it can turn comedic – see Baz Lurhmann’s 1996 film William Shakespeare’s Romeo+ Juliet. Although an incredibly entertaining film, the humor at the awkwardness of the archaic speech combined with the modern setting at times overpowers the true emotion that is trying to be conveyed.

 

It is because of this reason that primary documents, when read correctly and are therefore understood, are much better teachers than textbooks, where many things become lost in translation. If a historical reading is done correctly, it should evoke an emotional response in the reader. Although studying history goes against our normal way of thinking and reading, the effort put into reading these documents correctly, not only changes, but challenges our thoughts and views on society as a whole. Textbooks are not personal, and thus have no resonance with students. Since textbooks are dense with facts and no emotions, they are hard to understand and easy to forget. This brings attention to a question Wineburg asked in his article, “Why study history at all?” Since it is so hard to pay attention to, especially in a school setting where it is incredibly dulled down, do we actually learn anything from it? If students are not prepared for the future by learning about the past, how can they make informed decisions as adults? It is not possible for one person to experience every event ever in a lifetime, but studying history and learning about humans in the past makes us humanized. It affects us as human beings and does not just add to our knowledge. If people knew this, would they even care?

These days, pop culture is more influential than history. There was outcry around the internet on June 6th, 2009 when Google decided to design their homepage after the 25th anniversary of the game Tetris instead of D-Day, the storming of the beaches at Normandy. No wonder why children do not appreciate history, as the message is constantly sent out that things that are popular, famous, or cool is what is important to daily life. According to the article, history is “a foreign country, not a foreign planet.” With the right amount of planning and learning, it is possible to reach an understanding of the importance of history in our everyday lives. We need to open our minds and explore. If we simply know what we are trying to find as we look back, we take the easy way out. But being lazy, we miss the opportunity to go on an adventure of the past, straying from convenience and entering the strange, a whole new world of opportunity for learning and advancement awaits us. All we have to do is stray from the path and get lost in the woods. Are you brave enough to let go of the familiar and challenge yourself to an adventure?