Carlos Eduardo Orta

Homework 2

1. How was the experience of child immigrants in the 1890s similar to and different from that of child
immigrants now? What do you think accounts for the differences?

The 1890s meant the beginning of a mass migration from other countries to the United
states, widely increasing the population. Just like Rahel Cohen, many children and young teenagers
from all the world are part of geographical displacement, as of today, because of economic, social,
personal, or political reasons. The melting pot that the United States has accounts for people from all
countries developing here and contributing to the mixture of cultures and traditions. Similarly to the
1890s, today’s immigrant children are mostly pulled out of their country and brought to the US mainly
because of the breadwinning advantages of the father or mother. Jobs in the United States are still
strongly seeked by people around the world, believing in the concept of the American Dream. The
kids from then would be taken from their motherland, leaving friends, family, and the particular
traditions and aspects of their native country, to then assimilate the American culture, just like today.
For example, the language is one of the most notable factors of this argument. In the book, Rahel
Cohen struggled to learn english when she first arrived to the US. The social facets of a child are
highly influenced by the successful communication and interaction with other people. The need for
assimilation is something not only children, but also adults, go through in consequence of migration,
regardless of the time period. This hard assimilation can be subject to discrimination towards the
immigrant children at school or in streets. Racism and social ideas of supremacy are still relevant
today as it was years before. For this I would compare the loafers harassing jews, as accounted
from Cohen’s experience, to white supremacy organizations or anti-muslim groups of today’s United
States.

Differences between these eras could account for legal and political environments issued at
respective times, technology, and education aspects. The main difference I notice from the reading
in the book (and many other cases during the 1890s) would be the child labor easier acceptance.
When children arrived to the US, they could be forced to work by the parents to contribute to the
family’s economic situations. This could still be a case of today’s interest, but then, the government
disregarded the dangers or time involving the working day. Today, there are more regulations
involving the labor of under age workers. Another difference could be the transportation the children
of today have access from the one the infants of that time had. Modern transportation is much safer,
and suitable for not just children, but adults too. Back then children could lose a family member while
traveling due to the sanitary and safety conditions of the trip. Today, regulations are implemented to
prevent any cases of disease spreading or death during the trip, which means a safer experience for
children and their families.

2. How did being female impact Rahel's choices and her father's expectations?

From what I could gather while reading Chapter two, women in 1890s’ United States were
expected to take and acquire stay-home related jobs and skills. What makes me think this is written
in page 42 where Rahel asks his father about his life and work style in America. “ Father does
anyone in america live like this? Go to work, early , come home late, eat and go to sleep?... Will I
have to do that too?” “No. you will get married”. This makes me believe Avrom’s expectations for his
daughter were of an easy life that was left in hands of her future husband. Even if, Rahel had
exhausting jobs, they were not so dangerous as if she was to work with steel or coal. Avrom did
want her daughter to have the skills of a productive woman, but he wanted her to marry and hold a
simpler life alongside a working husband to maintain her.

Rahel herself had hard jobs. According to her they were often unfair and exhausting.
Because she was a female, she maybe had different experiences when seeking for a job than men.
Indeed, she once was sexually harassed by her boss and then fired. However, I do not see any clue
on the text that Ruth’s mere femininity had an impact on her work, social or religious choices. Her
jobs were merely taken by her because of financial need or family matters. She gave up her Judaism
to convert to Christianity despite her father opposing to this. Besides, she even divorced the man her
father had arranged her to marry. Also, the first boss of Avrom (his father) was Mrs. Nelson, which
makes me think that Rahel conceived a thought of opportunity and a chance to financially succeed in
America as a woman. From what I understand from the book, Rahel had a sense of independence
when related to women’s issues. “As she became a young woman with her own mind and priorities,
Ruth often clashed with her father: over religion, romance, and work. But she gave him the last word
in their book, as he reflected on his children's lives: “Ah! After all this is America!”” (Page 53). With
hardships, but despite of the social norms and the machismo in the United State’s culture, Ruth and
his father came to understand the American Dream idealism.

3. Why did Rahel prefer working in a garment sweatshop to being a domestic servant?

“Even if working in the garment industry was grueling, she could be with her own family in
the evenings” (Page 49). With little people known by Rahel, I think she felt safer when accompanied
with her family, since they were significant during her teenage years. When working as a servant for
the Corloves, she would have to reside with them to fulfill their necessities. She hardly took this job,
but thi was fundamental for the economic stability of her family. During her job at the sweatshop she
would interact with people that respected her and she could see her family during the evening. In
contrast, when living with the Corloves she was often “looked down upon her with inferiority” (Page
49).

4. Are there any topics you might expect not to see addressed in an autobiography that was
intended for publication?

When a work is published, it certainly has to be filtered through several people and
sometimes even governmental entities. If something like an autobiography was to be published for
people to read, it would have to match according to what would be “politically” correct to the date it is
published if it is to be checked by the government or people in charge of the publication. An
autobiography is to be durable through time and address the period’s issues and points of view of a
first person. However, if it is known that the autobiography that is to be written will be published,
several situations could be avoided in order to maintain an easy and correct publication.
Government issues’ for example were not discussed by Rahel in her autobiography. It gives us an
idea of the immigration treatment and lifestyle of the time, but it does not give us an explanation for
the situations presented like the hate towards jews, nor it complains about government standards of
child labor. Some other topics as family secrets or attitudes toward a certain issue could be also
avoided to evade further criticism of the work (autobiography).

When writing an autobiography that is to be published, one asks him or herself what would the
general public would think or assume based on what they read, and what will the proofreaders of the
publication could change. In conclusion, an autobiography can give good points of view and provide
good evidence of a topic, but when published it could be carefully examined and maybe censored or
adjusted to the public standards of learning and what is taught.