Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Although I like what the small amount of Urban History that I’ve studied, I think James Connolly has the weakest argument from the three readings. I didn’t see anything more than theories until he finally used the example of the role of the Irish-Catholics in the twin cities and how they affected the history of the two cities differently. I also come from the predisposition that Urban History tends to study more effect than cause.
Both Edwards and Schneirov, I believe, have stronger arguments than Connolly. I like that Schneirov combines the social, political, and capital effects on the history of the time, and I think he properly addresses areas of cause and affect that are essential to studying the time period, and he states that his opinion on what the period encompasses is just that, an opinion. I especially like how he emphasizes the importance of capitalism during this time; neither of the other two talk in as great of detail about it as he does. Unlike ajpignone, the jury is still out for me on whether or not Edwards ideas of including the Gilded Age with the Progressive Era. I will definitely have to research further on this specific argument to make my decision, but I think that she has a very strong argument. She gives multiple examples of progression during the Gilded Age. My predisposition to the time period is that it should be distinct from the Progressive Era, so the strength or weakness of the argument does not correlate with how I originally felt on the subject, unlike how I felt about Connolly’s essay.