2.7

1.  I think the most important thing I learned about immigration from the 19th century is chain migration. In the late 19th century when the Irish were coming to the US, the first newcomer would settle in and then eventually make arrangements for family members to come. This is the most important thing I learned because while this emigration pattern completely makes sense, I never knew it happened. And, I think it is important for me to know about this because it still happens now with all the hispanic immigration into the US which is a very popular current topic, so it is good that I know this because now I have more of a knowledge base to understand the current immigration problems in greater depth.

2.  I think the most important thing I have learned about immigration now is the push factors for getting out of a country. I knew the people fleeing to America were not in the best country before, but I hadn't realized the full extent of the lack of safety. Thus, being able to now know how much of a death sentence living in certain countries is has given me the ability to empathize with illegal immigrants and understand why they are desperate to come to the US which is why this is the most important thing I learned.

3. I think the two most difficult things would be trying to find a job with little to no education and not having safe food to eat. I would say Americans who struggled to find jobs were successful as many of them just went to work in factories. However, I would not say they were successful in creating a positive future for themselves because factory wages were way to low to support a family, and the conditions were so unsafe that being injured or killed wasn't a rarity. I would say America was successful in finding safe food to eat because the citizens' protests and attention drawn to the food industry caused laws to be changed and the food to be much more regulated and safer.

4. The High Line has progressivistic elements to it such as instead of choosing to tear down the abandoned, ugly railroad tracks, they instead asked what can we turn it into, which led to the creation of the High Line, and this is similar to the progressive era because of the creativity. Another progressive idea is Joshua David and Robert Hammond choosing to collaborate and create Friends of the High Line to save the High Line from being torn down. Not only did they collaborate in joining this, but they also collaborated with the whole community because they held an ideas competition that anyone could submit ideas to. Thus, the collaboration and imagination involved in building the High Line were also used in the progressive movement. However, the idea to create the High Line is innately contradictory to progressivism ideals because the progressive nature activists believed in the protection and nurturing of nature outside of the city. Progressives believed more in setting aside land outside of rural areas to keep it untouched and full of natural resources which is why they created national parks first. Thus, the actual idea of creating a park in an urban setting from old rail road tracks is very unprogressive. And, instead the progressives probably would've chosen to demolish it due to the fact it was not aesthetically pleasing, possibly a safety hazard, and the traintracks themselves were rooted in industrialism because they were train tracks used in factories and progressives were against unregulated industrialism which is what the train tracks represented.

5.

The High Line

Philanthropy

Warren Buffet, a huge philanthropist

1.According to Merriam-Webster, Charity is giving to those in need when there is a need and can only mean giving to one person, but philanthropy is giving to benefit human kind, and benefits more than one person usually. On Your Dictionary, Philanthropy is defined as associated with donating money to charity, volunteering, or serving/leading a foundation.
2. According to Columbia University Carnegie spent over 350 million in giving to better education and create world peace. He invested so much in philanthropy because he believed very passionately in the two causes, and thought his moral obligation was to give because he had enough money for his personal needs and family so he should give the rest to better the public. His projects includes spending 56$ million on building public libraries, starting and funding the Carnegie Mellon University, and creating numerous trusts and institutions.
3. Rockefeller like Carnegie was a very big philanthropist and donated over half a billion to charities and causes. Both Carnegie and Rockefeller donated to education and funded universities, but Rockefeller also donated to religious and scientific causes. For example, according to History.com Rockefeller started the Rockefeller sanitary commission which successfully eradicated hookworm is the southern US states.
4.  Carnegie is mainly involved now with education and world peace. His organizations include: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust,  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Carnegie Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, The Carnegie Hero Fund Trust, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust. 
5. Warren Buffett, he donated the majority to ending poverty. He only keeps 1% of his money and donates the rest. He spoke at a conference on the global poverty epidemic, and has donated billions to the Bill and Melinda Foundation.
6. If i were a philanthropist I would invest in education because the way to solve all problems is by being informed and educated about them. So, I would set up our next generation with all the knowledge necessary to try and solve problems like poverty and lack of food by funding education for poorer countries.