Response To Hardship In The 1920's

1582 Words7 Pages
Response to Hardship Within the confines of the city of Chicago, the Depression sparked a sudden shift in focus toward policy-making; this was a communal response to shared hardship endured by many—if not all—residents of Chicago at the time. In the early 1920’s most immigrants and first generation Americans lacked interest in political matters. General disregard for political activity was attributed to the fact that citizens’ immediate needs were addressed at the local level. That is, citizens found solutions to their problems via their communities and ethnic groups, as well as their employers and parishes. Thus, Chicago natives felt little need to consider the ideas of area policy-makers, given that such policies would generally…show more content…
Such an increase in working class voter turnout is partly due to Czech politician Anton Cermak, who became mayor of Chicago in 1931, and united many ethnic groups by embodying the “ethnic” candidate who talked like them and whose name was “strange” like theirs. Furthermore, many industrial workers favored the New Deal reforms like the Home Owners Loan Corporation.. In other words, different ethnic groups intermingled and income became the voting line rather than ethnicity. However, Socialism and Communism, according to Cohen, were not a real threat during this crisis. The CIO and other union leaders made sure that the ethnic barriers experienced in previous labor movements were torn down. As a result membership in the unions grew to new levels. The working class felt that they had worked hard for America and deserved state welfare support. Unionizing was workers’ way to ensure those demands were met, ultimately this resulted in the creation of powerful labor unions. up, many people abandoned their land. Others would have stayed but were forced out when they lost their land in bank foreclosures. In all, one-quarter of the population…show more content…
Conclusion Both Chicago and the Great Plains were greatly impacted by the Depression but they both had drastically different view. Chicago gained new strength, sense of diversity and unification of the working class while those living in the Plains were scared by the seemly unsurpassable challenges of accepting that the land which had provided them so much during the early 1900’s drastically crumbled by the 1930’s. Historic evidence has made it clear that for the growth and expansion of civilization, urban centers are where ideas are exchanged, and creative pursuits thrive the most even amongst the lowest of classes—as shown through the rise of industrial unions in Chicago during the Great Depression. More people, proportionally, seemed to have had the opportunity to rise out of poverty in Chicago compared to the Great Plains. This may have been due to the fact Chicago communities continue to grow which allowed industrial workers the luxury to be a force in a larger mass which possessed force and a political voice those in the Plains did not

More about Response To Hardship In The 1920's

Open Document