quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So if you are particularly worried about being killed, move anywhere in Canada. Even those dangerous smaller towns in Canada are safer than nearly everywhere in the US.
posted
While the myth of the ideal small town might be older than America, I think the place where we personally started to put a myth of the idyllic small town into place was the 1870's/1880's, but even that really depends on where you're from. It might have happened a little earlier in the north, but the 1870's and 80's were when people really started to move in huge numbers all across the nation to every other place in the nation, and the grand majority of that movement was from rural settings into urban ones.
Much like southern America at the time tried (successfully) to create a myth of how great things were in the antebellum south, there was a lot of lip service paid in general in America to a simpler time. We were a people that moved forward towards embracing industrialization and urban settings without a great deal of reservation, in fact we were rather proud of it, but at the same time we didn't lose hold of the myth of a better time, or at least a simpler one. I think this was much, much stronger in the south for a long time because they identified industry and big cities with Yankees, and no one wanted to be a Yankee. They wanted Yankee money and Yankee respect, but they didn't want to BE them, which actually ended up being part of the problem for them economically.
But this was the time when the literature really started to appear that idealized a small town America that never really existed. America has always been good at the "good old days" waxing of the present, one that looks back longingly at at a time that never really existed but that we create to both whitewash our past and to give us something to feel wistful about as we toil here in the present.
One of my history professors talked a lot a couple semesters ago about his own experiences in small town America, and he continues to wonder what all the excitement is about, as according to him small towns can be some of the most backward, vicious, brutal places you can live socially, where everyone gossips about everyone else, and community isn't all it's cracked up to be aside from the occasional barn raising or party. Granted that was a few decades ago, but I'm not sure how much rural small towns have really come from that, and I wouldn't since I grew up in the suburbs, where "community" is probably better described as the block you grew up on, rather than the city you grew up in.
I think the cult of "small town America" has been around ever since then, in many modified forms, but it's never existed as it is glorified, at least, not for hundreds of years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my best friends is from a small town - about two thousand people. There was one school, and it was K-12.
It was, in actuality, the idyll that the stories extoll. Life wasn't perfect, but it was clean, safe, and the worst trouble people got into in high was getting pregnant left and right, which can happen anywhere. She'd love to move back if she had a chance, but her husband's job is in the city.
I doubt she's white-washing it - her parents still live there, and we became friends her freshman year of college.
I'm not saying that small-town life is always like that, but it certainly is like that at least some of the time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Its interesting to note that in Canada (and I think moreso in the US) living in a small town would be the easiest way for me to drastically *lower* the percentage of people that are just like me.
You have seen Corner Gas, right? Some Canadian friends got me hooked on that show.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I"m sure that it would be idylic for your friend. For a lot of people - myself included - it would be stifling and dull.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'd hate it and would throw myself off a bridge if forced to live there. Her point, however, was that if you are a kid, and a kid from a family without a ton of money, then a place where everyone knows your name, you have loads of responsibility and freedom because it is so safe, and there isn't anyone outside of the town doctors with a ton of money so the rat race doesn't apply, it is absolutely fantastic. Even for the parents, having lots of people you trust to babysit and being able to let them go out the door in the morning and not confine them to a hankerchief of a backyard is very freeing.
Most of those things do sound pretty great.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...and Normon Rockwell's paintings.
Hey leave Normon Rockwell out of this, I love his work. His work was definitely not confined to rural environs either, but perhaps you weren't stating it was, merely that much of his work reflects that ideal.
edit: I'm not as annoyed as I sound. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My ex is from a small town in the midwest, and it does sound great, as long as you're one of the stereotypical upper class. The whole town seemed very cliquish though, kind of like you're living in high school.
Everyone knows everyone's business, so if you go to the wrong church, or have the wrong color skin, or work the wrong job, or are attracted to the wrong people, it sure isn't idyllic for you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...and Normon Rockwell's paintings.
Hey leave Normon Rockwell out of this, I love his work. His work was definitely not confined to rural environs either, but perhaps you weren't stating it was, merely that much of his work reflects that ideal.
edit: I'm not as annoyed as I sound.
I love both Normon Rockwell and Garrison Keillor, I just think there work is reflective of a certain mythology we Americans have about ourselves and its worth recognizing it isn't true.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I live in a small town, last year moving right into what is close to the center of town.
It is the most political place I've ever seen. I don't mean there are Republicans and Democrats shouting at each other.
I mean there are four families each believing that as rulers of this small plot of land they know what is best, for their families, their citizens, and everyone else for that matter.
These four rarely agree.
One is using all the resources of government to make the down-town area of town a quaint wine-country b&b resort town. (Yes Missouri has quite a fine wine country, and the occasional resort).
Another family believes that TIFFS can turn the area into a manufacturer's paradise and has developed a whole area of town, recently annexed, into a major corporate zone.
Another family wants the quick cash and are setting up the major road into town as "Box Store Retail Heaven".
Finally, another family, recently retired from the seen, tried to gobble up all the surrounding countryside, pushing the borders of the town up to, and attempted into, neighboring towns. The county capital 5 miles away did not like it when my town tried to annex part of them.
It is all petty politics, and the type of petty politicians which annoy me the most. It was the idea that Gov. Palin came from this type of political birthing place that turned me off of her quickly.
As far as crime, one thing that has brought a great big change is Meth. Unlike other drugs such as cocaine, and to some extent marijuana, meth is something that can be cooked up anywhere.
This means that the small towns didn't have to import their drugs from criminals, but could export it if they made enough.
Places like Missouri, Ohio, Kansas and Texas have become not the end of long drug trafficking routes, but the beginning, since the remote location and understaffed law enforcement means it is cheap and easy to make it local.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: "Well, I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona."
(edit: oooh, top of the page. That just makes the quote even odder.)
Can you convince the rest of Californians of this? And then come here and convince the tens of thousands of them that moved here during the housing boom to move back?
Signed, the city that may or may not be the climatic equivalent of hell on earth.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My ex is from a small town in the midwest, and it does sound great, as long as you're one of the stereotypical upper class. The whole town seemed very cliquish though, kind of like you're living in high school.
Everyone knows everyone's business, so if you go to the wrong church, or have the wrong color skin, or work the wrong job, or are attracted to the wrong people, it sure isn't idyllic for you.
I think the CrowsWife's comments on this were very insightful. Each small town has its own character. In this respect, I think small towns have a lot in common with a Mormon ward or branch. Some of them are in fact exactly the way you describe a small town, cliquish, gossiping and quick to exclude anyone who is a little different. But I've been in others that were very open, warm and friendly to everyone. One or two key families can make an enormous difference in the character of a community that size.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: 1)Small town folk feel looked down on by city folk so (a) they push a positive image of small towns to combat this and (b) they are receptive to messages such as Palin's.
I don't think small town people so much push the positive stereotype as embrace it. The fact that they feel looked down on by city folk probably makes them hold to it tighter, but I think they'd embrace it even if all city fold envied them. People who like their homes and homelands, whether that home is Manhattan New York or Manhattan Montana, are quick to accept the positive myths about their homes and quick to be offended by the negative stereotypes. Its just human nature.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... then a place where everyone knows your name...
Alternatively, one could live on Cheers.
quote:Originally posted by Traceria:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Its interesting to note that in Canada (and I think moreso in the US) living in a small town would be the easiest way for me to drastically *lower* the percentage of people that are just like me.
You have seen Corner Gas, right? Some Canadian friends got me hooked on that show.
No (unless you count ads). I have nothing against it, it just doesn't relate to me. I was amused by Due South though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: As far as crime, one thing that has brought a great big change is Meth. Unlike other drugs such as cocaine, and to some extent marijuana, meth is something that can be cooked up anywhere.
This means that the small towns didn't have to import their drugs from criminals, but could export it if they made enough.
Places like Missouri, Ohio, Kansas and Texas have become not the end of long drug trafficking routes, but the beginning, since the remote location and understaffed law enforcement means it is cheap and easy to make it local.
Before meth became popular, there was a lot of illegal marijuana being grown in rural small towns and exported to bigger cities. Back in the 80s, there were lots of people growing pot in the small towns in eastern washington and running it over mountains to sell in Seattle.
Before that, there was moonshine whiskey.
There is also currently a big problem with prescription drug abuse in small towns all over. That's what Bristol Palin's MIL was pushing.
Recreational drugs have always been popular in small towns. Probably in part because there is so little else to do for recreation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read once that the romanticization of country living, part of which was the rise of popularity of country music which glorifies it, really took off in the 30s and 40s, which is when American switched from having the majority of the population living in rural communities to having the majority in urban communities.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last night I realized another motivation I have for moving to a small town: solitude and nature. (Ironically, I realized this while reading Whitman's paean to city life, Give Me the Splendid Silent Sun). One of the things that's bothered me the most moving from Northern UT to Eastern MA is that wilderness doesn't really exist here. You have to take a trip to find it, and even then you're likely to meet hundreds of other people there as well. Regular, solitary communion with nature is definitely one of the things that drives me toward settling down in a small (Western) town.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senjo, just go to NH or VT, there is a lot of land there. Don't go to the quaint little towns near the MA border, everyone else heads there too.
RI is small but has TONS or beach property and poublic beaches, and most of MA doesn't even know how great RI is....and western MA is only 2 hours away, and is very rural.
I hated MA myself, but it isn't all like Boston (although the MA government seems to think the state ends at Worcester). Boston IS great, but I liked it as a place to VIST, not live in. (hides from Bok)
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Our little town of 3 to 4 thousand, depending on the price of gold, is not rural at all. It is a very small, highly urbanized, remote community as are many mining towns in the west. But, we have a large defense related facility, absolutly no surrounding agriculture and the town is limited to a one mile square area.
We have one stop-light, one bank, one barber, one school. (with a 10building campus) Basically we have one of everything except churches and bars. A majority of voters are regestered Democrats but a largely anti-intellectual Palenesque mindset. We have always supported Harry Reid and our American Independent Party county commissionars.
Substance abuse is epidemic and adhoc local charitable giving is phenomenal. The air is so clear you can see to the edge of the universe. But, on a cold winter morning the town is wrapped in a thick brown blanket of smoke. We have the nicest rural library in the state and one of the worst High Schools. It is a twenty minute walk in any direction to be into the "wilderness" and a 60 minute drive to the next tree.
I am sure we are NOT what Mr. Jefferson had in mind when he thought of a of yoeman citizens. But, we are Patriots to a person.
Oh, Normon Rockwell would probably take a pass. It is an ugly town in a beautiful desert.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I saw Doc Hollywood over the Christmas break.
Why? Most people like to spend their Christmas break doing enjoyable, fun things.
As a slight tangent- can anyone think of a movie where the big-city professional moves to the small, country town, and is horrified (even unto the end) to discover it's full of people who are small-minded, ignorant, and backward?...
I guess Warren Zevon's "Play it All Night Long" is the equivalent song response to "Sweet Home Alabama" and the like.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take you either don't listen to a Prairie Home Companion or don't consider it popular entertainment.
You're using Garrison Keillor's PHC as a example of someone describing small-town life in idyllic tones?
Have YOU listened to Prairie Home Companion, Rabbit?
Generally, Keillor isn't enamored with Lake Woebegon; the 'All the women are strong; all the men are good looking; and all the children are above average' at the end of each broadcast is as easily ironic as it is sincere. Keillor uses PHC to make fun of small town hicks (and the ideology he brands them with) just as readily as the most boneheaded, prejudiced Hollywood producer.
It comes off very strongly that there's a reason Keillor doesn't live in Lake Woebegone any longer-- he's grown up.
I grew up in a dot on the map-- 380 people. I wasn't unhappy to leave-- the simple country life requires far too much hard work for my taste. I've since lived in small towns, big cities, the suburbs and in rural America. I've discovered, I think, that a place is what you make of it. A person who is determined to engage the community in which he or she lives, and to treat people with respect and kindness will probably do well and live happily, and find respect and kindness, no matter where they go.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... As a slight tangent- can anyone think of a movie where the big-city professional moves to the small, country town, and is horrified (even unto the end) to discover it's full of people who are small-minded, ignorant, and backward?...
As I said before, this should cover at least 10% of The X-Files Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just came across this passage in Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone
quote:Virtually all forms of altruism - volunteerism, community projects, philanthropy, directions for strangers, aid for the afflicted, and so on - are demonstrably more common in small towns. Crime rates of all sorts are two or three times higher in cities... Store clerks in small towns are more likely to return overpayment than their urban counterparts. People in small towns are more likely to assist a "wrong number" phone caller than urban dwellers. Cheating on taxes, employment forms, insurance claims, and bank loan applications are three times more likely to be condoned in cities than in small towns. Car dealers in small towns perform far fewer unnecessary repairs than big-city dealerships.
With this litany goes a long list of primary sources that I haven't looked at. But this reinforces my anecdotal experience that people in small towns are in general friendlier, more honest, and more trustworthy.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Putnam back this up with actual data or is he just another example of people painting a idealistic view of small town life.
Also, what does Putnam consider to be a small town? Are we talking about towns of tens of thousands, or a few hundred people.
People from New York, consider Bozeman MT (population ~30,000) to be a small town, but people from Two Dot Montana consider it to be the big city.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Just came across this passage in Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone
quote:Virtually all forms of altruism - volunteerism, community projects, philanthropy, directions for strangers, aid for the afflicted, and so on - are demonstrably more common in small towns. Crime rates of all sorts are two or three times higher in cities... Store clerks in small towns are more likely to return overpayment than their urban counterparts. People in small towns are more likely to assist a "wrong number" phone caller than urban dwellers. Cheating on taxes, employment forms, insurance claims, and bank loan applications are three times more likely to be condoned in cities than in small towns. Car dealers in small towns perform far fewer unnecessary repairs than big-city dealerships.
With this litany goes a long list of primary sources that I haven't looked at. But this reinforces my anecdotal experience that people in small towns are in general friendlier, more honest, and more trustworthy.
Or that the consequences of getting caught are higher when everyone knows everyone else. A car dealer would be less likely to gouge his cousin; that doesn't make him more honest. They are more likely to know the correct number to assist a wrong number; that doesn't make them friendlier.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or that the consequences of getting caught are higher when everyone knows everyone else. A car dealer would be less likely to gouge his cousin; that doesn't make him more honest. They are more likely to know the correct number to assist a wrong number; that doesn't make them friendlier.
I know of some small towns where locals receive a discount off the marked price at local establishments (which is just another way to say they gauge strangers).
As for "cheating on taxes", while it maybe less likely for small towners to condone it, I bet they are just as likely to do it. Except among the very wealthy, the most common way to cheat on taxes is to do business in cash under the table and never report it, which is so common in small towns most people don't even know its cheating.
And my experience with small town car dealers and mechanics is that they are extremely likely to cheat you if you are a stranger on your way through town.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... Crime rates of all sorts are two or three times higher in cities ...
Again, bah.
quote: Crime is not necessarily a big-city phenomenon in Canada, according to a new study of 2005 police-reported data. The study found that small urban areas had higher overall crime rates than both large urban areas and rural areas, and that homicide rates were highest in rural areas.
...
Taking population into account, the homicide rate of 2.5 homicides per 100,000 people in rural areas was actually higher than the rate of 2.0 in large urban areas and the rate of 1.7 in small urban areas. This pattern has held constant over the past decade.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... Virtually all forms of altruism - volunteerism, community projects, philanthropy, directions for strangers, aid for the afflicted, and so on - are demonstrably more common in small towns...
quote: The differences between Canada's urban and rural residents are smaller than they are often perceived to be in terms of various aspects of social engagement, cohesion and participation, according to a new study.
Residents of rural Canada were more likely than their city cousins to know all or most of their neighbours, more likely to trust their neighbours, and more likely to have done some volunteer work.
In addition, they were more likely to have a strong sense of belonging to their community.
However, the study showed that rural people were no more likely to provide help to people that they know, such as relatives, neighbours or friends. And, there was no evidence that that they were less likely to be socially isolated from close friends and relatives than urban people.
In addition, levels of political involvement were similar in communities of all sizes, and the level of trust toward other people in general was similar in both urban and rural places.
posted
I should perhaps have said the analysis in Bowling Alone is US specific. There are cultural differences between Canada and the US, as you've previously noted, that limit the applicability of comparisons between small towns and big cities cross nationally.
As for thick (personal) trust vs. thin (generalized) trust, Putnam makes the case that both are highly correlated with associational life. So, in his formulation, in small towns where associations are both more extensive and more intensive people tend to have higher stores of "social capital" in the form of dense and broad social networks. This has both positive and negative effects.
The empirical work Putnam does isn't beyond criticism, certainly. He focuses almost solely on the positive effects of associationalism, and neglects the negative effects. I just read an interesting theoretical article by Alejandro Portes on the negative external consequences of dense social networks. Also, Barbara Arneil critiques all aspects of Putnam's empirical work in her book Diverse Communities. At heart, her critique is that Putnam's explanation of how dense associations lead to trust (and trustworthiness) assumes homogeneous communities (in terms of norms, beliefs, and discriminatory characteristics) which is increasingly becoming not the case.
These critiques notwithstanding, I still buy Putnam's argument. When we participate in sports leagues or community breakfasts or town meetings, we learn to trust (and tolerate) our neighbors. People in small towns (in the US) tend to have higher levels of associationialism and consequently higher levels of trust and trustworthiness. (The consequently is somewhat implicit in Putnam's book; he's careful to note that his empirical results show that associationalism correlates with, rather than causes, high levels of trust. The closest he comes to stating causation is when he calls the two "a coherent syndrome" implying they are mutually reinforcing).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The empirical work Putnam does isn't beyond criticism, certainly.
Social science is almost by definition empirical but I get the feeling that Putnam's work is worse than empirical but heavily reliant on the anecdotal rather than statistical analysis. Is that assessment correct?
quote:These critiques notwithstanding, I still buy Putnam's argument. When we participate in sports leagues or community breakfasts or town meetings, we learn to trust (and tolerate) our neighbors.
But the counter side of this is that tight knit communities are frequently more distrustful of outsiders. My sense is that it is a in correct interpretation to say people in small towns are more trusting than people in big cities. We are all more likely to trust and tolerate people we know well. The big difference is that in a small town, people rarely interact with people they don't know well -- hence the impression is easily created that they are more trusting when the truth is that they simply know the people they interact with better.
To get a more truthful picture of what's going on, you really need to separate how people treat strangers from how they treat those with whom they are well acquainted. The acid test here would be to ask how much small town people are willing to trust total strangers from a different subculture. I have no data to back it up but I'd be willing to bet that there is little difference between urban and rural in how trustful and trustworthy they are with people who they know well. On the other hand, in my experience people who live in close knit small communities are much more distrustful and untrustworthy when dealing with strangers. In fact, there is often a great deal of hostility in small towns to anyone who is perceived as an outsider.
Its only when you lump interactions with close aquaintance and stranger together that you get the false notion that people in close knit communities are generally more trusting and trustworthy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I like about big cities is their restaurants are better, I guess because there is much more competition. Similarly, there will be a lot more to choose from in picking a dentist, gynecologist, ophthalmologist, etc. They'll have more choice in grocery stores, better live theater, a better symphony, art museum, more frequent concerts with better known bands, etc. I'm sure there are more types of activities and clubs to choose from. For instance, my town has an astronomy group that holds monthly star parties, a paleontology group that goes fossil hunting regularly, and many other such associations based on interests. Smaller towns can't support those.
Disadvantages are longer average commute time, less direct exposure to nature and natural beauty, much worse light pollution (if you like skygazing), and no exposure to that blessed, deeply relaxing sound of stillness and quiet near silence filled only with bird and cricket noises. That sound is so lovely.
On a tangential note, I heard the first Pileated Woodpecker I've heard here in years the other day, in my urban suburban oasis. I thought they'd all gone off to the deep woods.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I lived in a small town for a while -- the one my husband was raised in. It was totally corrupt. All the elections were rigged and the police officers sold dope. Very friendly, though. At least, to people they knew. Hated outsiders. Every time we walked into the grocery store we passed people who knew my husband. Took forever to get the shopping done.
I live in the suburbs of a big city now and have most of my life. People tend to mind their own business at the grocery store, although we visit the same one often enough that the stockers know us and are very friendly. With so many people around, it's less likely that going to a random shop, I'm going to know anyone. But when I go to familiar places, like church, the people are still friendly.
Social networks in big cities don't seem to extend quite as far as they do in small towns. In a big city, people are more likely to befriend for cause, rather than just because they happen to live in the same square mile. It's easier to be anonymous in a city.
None of this makes one inherently better than the other. None of this makes the people in one inherently more honest, trustworthy, or friendly than the other. It's just different lifestyles.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I should perhaps have said the analysis in Bowling Alone is US specific. There are cultural differences between Canada and the US, as you've previously noted, that limit the applicability of comparisons between small towns and big cities cross nationally.
There are large cultural differences between large American cities and large Canadian cities, I find much less difference between American small towns and Canadian small towns. Anyways, I find it worth noting that this shows that there are few intrinsic differences between small towns and big cities that carry over across borders and that whatever differences that exist between the two in the US may ultimately have to be explained by factors unique to America (if they exist at all).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...and Normon Rockwell's paintings.
Hey leave Normon Rockwell out of this, I love his work. His work was definitely not confined to rural environs either, but perhaps you weren't stating it was, merely that much of his work reflects that ideal.
edit: I'm not as annoyed as I sound.
I love both Normon Rockwell and Garrison Keillor, I just think there work is reflective of a certain mythology we Americans have about ourselves and its worth recognizing it isn't true.
Sorry to dredge this up but I found it important to point out that this ideal was real for a time. Everything about it may not have been present all in the same place but many of the virtues people admire about that time did in fact exist.
I think that because it did exist at some point, people believe it can be reattained. Just as the pendulum swings back and forth between conservatism and liberalism some people are hoping that it swings back just a little bit farther on the way back, and does not swing quite so far away.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's real the same way democracy in ancient Athens was real - there, but not the reality for the majority of the people at the time, and only possible because of that.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Putnam does a good job with his data and statistics (of which there are reams; he correlates everything with everything using decades worth of opinion polling, associational membership records and measurable political activity). It's the leap from data and observations to explanations that are weak, and (as Arneil pointed out) the unrecognized assumptions that underpin his chosen explanations. Because I'm pre-biased in favor of some of his explanations, I probably find the story more interesting than others would.
As for the negative consequences of small-town life (or tight-knit communities in general; many of the same observations are true of ethnic enclaves in large cities), the list that Portes comes up with (that I referenced earlier) includes: exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members (essentially if one community member succeeds, all the members of the community are going to be touching her for money and favors), restrictions on individual freedom, and downward levelling norms (anyone attempting to succeed beyond the boundaries of the community is sanctioned for selling out).
Also, as Christine points out, negative associations can thrive in small towns as well. Social capital (if such a thing really exists) can be employed equally well to encourage membership in Habitat for Humanity or the Ku Klux Klan. The high social capital of small towns can amplify the effect of both positive and negative associations.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Vladimir Putin said it quite aptly, "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."
Substitute Soviet Union for 1950s America and I think it still holds true.
Wow. I completely disagree with both points. Maybe it's because I like being married to my husband (who I could not marry 50 years ago in much of the US) and I also like my civil liberties (which I would not have had in the Soviet Untion). Guess I'm just a heartless bitch.
Seriously. Platitudes might help you sleep at night but they're not particularly good for proving a point.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Vladimir Putin said it quite aptly, "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."
Substitute Soviet Union for 1950s America and I think it still holds true.
Wow. I completely disagree with both points. Maybe it's because I like being married to my husband (who I could not marry 50 years ago in much of the US) and I also like my civil liberties (which I would not have had in the Soviet Untion). Guess I'm just a heartless bitch.
Seriously. Platitudes might help you sleep at night but they're not particularly good for proving a point.
Um...wow back at you? I wasn't expecting such an energetic rebuff.
I understand that in some very personal ways the 1950s would have been a terrible time for you, perhaps the drawbacks would have heavily outweighed the benefits. I think the Soviet Union also was a terrible place to live in, just as I think Mao's China would have horrified me. Maybe it's just me but I find that just about every time period has aspects about it that make it kind of, "sweet, cute, cool?"
My grandmother still carries some of the ugliness of racism and bigotry in her thought process, she would probably disapprove of your marriage even today. But I find the unfailing use of terms like, "sir" or "ma'am" to be kind of nice. That when somebody's child came home from WWII the whole neighborhood turned out to congratulate him. When you moved into a neighborhood it was common for your neighbors to drop by, introduce themselves, and help you move in.
Perhaps your overall view of the 1950s makes it repulsive, but I find there is enough sufficiently right about it that I can still summon up feelings of fondness though I never lived then.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Your points about the politeness of the 1950s have made me completely change my mind. Of course I should feel fondness for a place/time that would deny me and millions of others basic civil rights.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Hmmm. Your points about the politeness of the 1950s have made me completely change my mind. Of course I should feel fondness for a place/time that would deny me and millions of others basic civil rights.
Is that really what you think my point was?
edit: Also a decrease is sarcasm and snarkiness would be greatly appreciated.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: I think Rabbit's original point was that the rose colored view was pretty selective, not that friendly neighborhood barbers with content customers didn't exist. That there was a lot of bad with the good.
So when you take pains to respond by pointing out that the "ideal did exist" it seems as though you are contradicting the point that the ideal was not generally true. Though you included qualifiers in your post, the impression is that you think things were better back then.
Some of the nice things you mention would only (usually) apply if the neighbor possessed the right demographic profile. Even though you continue to qualify your fondness for the 50s, you seem to ignore that the nicenesses were similarly qualified.
This I think is where the energetic rebuff came from.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you not say that you feel a fondness for the 1950s? And that anyone who doesn't miss 1950s America doesn't have a heart? I'll even grant you a bit of poetic hyperbole on the last point, but I think it's clear what you sentiment is.
Frankly, I think that sort of attitude is disgraceful. It's fine to admire a few parts of a radically flawed culture - it's another thing to suggest that a society that was full of prejudice and sexist and racist discrimination is one to be missed or admired as a whole.
Edit: You're talking about a society where, in many places, I could not have married my husband. Where he might have been strung up and killed for being seen holding hands with me in some areas. Because we have different skin tones. Just that, nothing else. Think about that. Really, really think about that. Is that a place or time to admire as a whole?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of the nostalgia for the 50s among older people does come from a wistfulness for a time when we had cheap servants and everyone stayed in their places. Drat these uppity womenfolk and darkies these days! You know? That's part of it.
Part of it is just this completely false feeling every generation has that when they were younger things weren't so crazy and out of control. Things made sense back then, darn it! Everything was easier. I've heard that sentiment expressed throughout the ages in writings from ancient Greek times to the present. My grandfather believed it of his time. No doubt he thought this awful prurient jazz music and the injudicious reading of comic books by the young were dangerous and quite uncalled for.
I'm going to try always to look forward as I get old, and not back. I'm going to be excited by all the changes and the many improvements. I think the best times of all are definitely yet to come.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Announcer: Do you remember a time when chocolate chips came fresh from the oven? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Fry: Ah, those were the days. Announcer: Do you remember a time when women couldn't vote and certain people weren't allowed on golf courses? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Did you not say that you feel a fondness for the 1950s? And that anyone who doesn't miss 1950s America doesn't have a heart? I'll even grant you a bit of poetic hyperbole on the last point, but I think it's clear what you sentiment is.
Frankly, I think that sort of attitude is disgraceful. It's fine to admire a few parts of a radically flawed culture - it's another thing to suggest that a society that was full of prejudice and sexist and racist discrimination is one to be missed or admired as a whole.
Edit: You're talking about a society where, in many places, I could not have married my husband. Where he might have been strung up and killed for being seen holding hands with me in some areas. Because we have different skin tones. Just that, nothing else. Think about that. Really, really think about that. Is that a place or time to admire as a whole?
Depends on what your definition of the whole is, and how important which negatives are to you personally.
But yes, I think there is a lot to admire about the 50's, and there's a great deal to abhor as well.
I also think you're adding a lot of extra weight to what BB was saying that isn't really there. There's a lot of good stuff to be said about the 50's, but he's not suggesting we bring it back en masse. He's lamenting the good stuff that got lost while recognizing the good riddance to the bad. Just because the 50's was one of many bad chapters in American race relations doesn't mean we have to downplay every aspect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what there is to admire about the '50s that wasn't more admirable about the '20s.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interest rates for mortgages were around 3% for most of the decade, but there still wasn't a housing meltdown. More people went to college than ever before. The highways were built, which, even though a mobile society is not always good, was fantastic in terms of infrastructure that made food cheaper and long term prosperity possible.
That was cool. Lots of things were very cool.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I often think old TV shows glamorize the 50's in a way that was never true. Of course, I have no personal memories of the time and I think that my parents and grandparents may not be remembering well. Humans, as a whole, have selective memories. It is the selective memories of the "good old days" that I'm sure influenced the saying that BB mentioned. In those selective memories, I imagine, there were no race problems.
I'd prefer not to overglamorize historic time periods but rather, to try to take the lessons from them and apply them to the cultural problems of today. Nowadays, we're afraid to leave our house because people have made us paranoid that our neighbors are sexual predators. Women can go out and have careers, which is great, but by and large they are still expected to do that on top of raising the kids and maintaining the home. We really have not figured out how to balance work and family in our new dynamic. I mean, 6 weeks of maternity leave? My 9-month-old still isn't sleeping through the night consistently.
As far as neighborliness goes, if you think it's an ideal worth having then put it in your life. The last time a new neighbor moved in, my husband and I introduced ourselves and brought them fresh banana bread. We just had a new set of neighbors move in this week and I'll be heading over there in the next couple of days. For the most part, we don't really know our neighbors well and they did not (not a single person) come by to introduce themselves to us when we moved in. In fact, after a couple of months we started walking around and knocking on doors to say, "Hi, we moved in back in January...might not have noticed with all the snow and ice." A few people indicated that in fact, they hadn't really noticed because it was the heart of winter and they hadn't gone outside. I think heating and air conditioning really cuts down on neighborliness. We'd just as soon stay inside. (One neighbor was having an emergency c-section on the day we moved in and I decided that was a pretty good excuse not to come over. They later became close friends.)
So maybe the world isn't picture perfect today and maybe the cities/suburbs where I live contain more suspicions but I'm doing my best not to be a part of that, one neighbor and one loaf of bread at a time.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Did you not say that you feel a fondness for the 1950s? And that anyone who doesn't miss 1950s America doesn't have a heart? I'll even grant you a bit of poetic hyperbole on the last point, but I think it's clear what you sentiment is.
Frankly, I think that sort of attitude is disgraceful. It's fine to admire a few parts of a radically flawed culture - it's another thing to suggest that a society that was full of prejudice and sexist and racist discrimination is one to be missed or admired as a whole.
Edit: You're talking about a society where, in many places, I could not have married my husband. Where he might have been strung up and killed for being seen holding hands with me in some areas. Because we have different skin tones. Just that, nothing else. Think about that. Really, really think about that. Is that a place or time to admire as a whole?
Depends on what your definition of the whole is, and how important which negatives are to you personally.
But yes, I think there is a lot to admire about the 50's, and there's a great deal to abhor as well.
I also think you're adding a lot of extra weight to what BB was saying that isn't really there. There's a lot of good stuff to be said about the 50's, but he's not suggesting we bring it back en masse. He's lamenting the good stuff that got lost while recognizing the good riddance to the bad. Just because the 50's was one of many bad chapters in American race relations doesn't mean we have to downplay every aspect.
Lyrhawn, the closest BB got to "recognizing the good riddance to the bad" was when he said this:
quote:Sorry to dredge this up but I found it important to point out that this ideal was real for a time. Everything about it may not have been present all in the same place but many of the virtues people admire about that time did in fact exist.
If you can point out a place where he actually admitted there was bad, I'd love to see it. You've said it, clearly, but he hasn't.
And I would hope that the "negatives" of racism and sexism of that era would be something that everyone would take as important personally, not just people who are personally affected by it.
I have no problem with saying, "hey, such and such was a good feature of the 1950s." I do have a major problem with "hey, the 1950s were so good that we should remember it fondly." Like many others have pointed out, that's idealizing an era that does not deserve it. In fact, I'd say no era, just like no person, ought to be idealized. Learn from them, admire aspects of them, certainly, idealize, no.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
