Hatrack River Forum: Small Town America

This is topic Small Town America in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=054638

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

There is a tendency in America to romanticize small town life. We tend to think of rural small towns as bastions of wholesome clean hardworking all American living. Places where people are warm, friendly, go to church on Sunday, marry their childhood sweetheart and live happily ever after. We expect them to be just like Garrison Keillors Prairie Home Companion and Normon Rockwell's paintings.

A few days ago, Bristol Palin's babies other Grandma was arrested on 6 drug related felonies. My thought was, I've known this woman. The small town rural mother who got caught in a sting for dealing drugs. This story started me musing about the widespread problems in what Sarah Palin called "The Real America". It doesn't fit the stereotype, but drug and alcohol abuse are big problems in the rural small towns of Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico and very likely much of the US. And its not just among rowdy kids who haven't settled down. A fair share of mature adults are involved as well. In fact most of the problems we commonly associate with inner cities, like multi-generational poverty, teen pregnancy, low literacy levels, and vandalism are the secret problems of small towns.

While people in small towns are sometimes friendlier than those in big cities, there is also a tendency for people in small towns to be very xenophobic. It can be very difficult for anyone from the outside to be accepted. I once hear Garrison Keillor talking about his inspiration for "Lake Woebegone". He said that he had lived for a time in a very closed xenophobic area of Minnesota where his neighbors would barely speak to him because he was an outsider. He said "Lake Woebegone" was written as a counter to that. It was the way he wanted small town life to be rather than the way he had experienced it.

Why do you suppose the myth of the idyllic small town life is so pervasive in America? Why do people both in small towns and big cities have this romantic fantasy about small town life?

Even as I write this, I will admit that I plan to go back to living in Montana. I vastly prefer living in a remote city of 20 thousand to living in a crowded urban area even if the smaller city doesn't come close to approximating the romantic ideal.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
Why do you suppose the myth of the idyllic small town life is so pervasive in America? Why do people both in small towns and big cities have this romantic fantasy about small town life?

It's older than that. The Country Mouse/City Mouse fable is from the Greeks.

Ever since the first person paid somebody else to do some work he didn't want to do, people have been conflicted about the virtues of a rural lifestyle. [Smile]

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :

Tom is right. It's not an American thing. It's a human thing. The greeks had it. Also the Romans, the English (Tolkien's Shire, anyone?), the Portuguese and we Brazilians all have the "idylic little town" myth.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

True, but that still doesn't address the question of why we have it.

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :

Here's some crime statistics on the Urban/Suburban/Rural divide. Rural locales are much safer (although becoming less so, as violence in cities and suburbs is generally decreasing).

As very much a pastoral idealist, I think a lot of it goes to the relative lack of anonymity in a small town versus a big city. I think people like feeling "part" of something, and I think people believe that ideal is better realized in rural communities. Or at least, from my personal perspective, that's largely the draw of a rural community.

It also has to do, IMO, with a belief in the stabilizing influence of land ownership; if you're tied to a place by ownership, you tend to be more thoughtful in how you treat it, as well as the respect you give to other's property, or so I imagine the thinking goes.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
It also has to do, IMO, with a belief in the stabilizing influence of land ownership; if you're tied to a place by ownership, you tend to be more thoughtful in how you treat it, as well as the respect you give to other's property, or so I imagine the thinking goes.

I think that's part of the myth that doesn't actually line up with reality. Montanan's (for example) are convinced that they are great stewards of the land, but in reality Montana has more superfund sites than any other state. Some farmers and ranchers are good stewards of the land, others are terrible.

Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Here's some crime statistics on the Urban/Suburban/Rural divide. Rural locales are much safer (although becoming less so, as violence in cities and suburbs is generally decreasing).

Just want to follow that up by saying that while that is true, small town, rural spots can sometimes be nests of domestic violence. I have no idea how they might compare to urban or suburban areas where that is concerned, but a small town guy I knew pointed that out as one of the biggest and most widespread problems in his community.

Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :

Small towns vary widely in character, depending largely on the character of the people within them. I live in a town of 800 that is very different from a neighboring town, only three miles away, that has about 200 people. In towns these small, individual and family personalities have a much bigger impact on the whole than in a city (yes, 20,000 feels like a city, now). So if your main family is warm and welcoming, the whole village will feel warm and welcoming. If your main families are suspicious and cynical, well, the whole town will feel that way even if there are nice individuals here and there.

I think that is one of the reasons that small towns can be so appealing: individuals have a much greater impact on the whole system, for good or for ill.

--Mel

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

I learned while living in Montana not to call a city of 20,000 a small town. There is as much difference between a city of 20,000 and a town of 800 as there is between a city of 2 million and a city of 20,000.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

800 people isn't a small town. It's a gas station. [Smile]

----------

I think the biggest part of it actually goes back to Sartre: living in a city, you are forced to regularly encounter things which challenge your worldview.

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :

One of my college roommates was from a town of 200. It had "The Bar," and "The Other Bar." "The Other Bar" was also the post office. After seeing that town, I decided I like places with at least 10,000 people.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
...
Why do you suppose the myth of the idyllic small town life is so pervasive in America? Why do people both in small towns and big cities have this romantic fantasy about small town life?

Happens in China too, intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution were sent back to the countryside for re-education in the belief that hard labour and the simple life would reform their decadent ways.

Edit to add: Come to think of it, thats just an update of customs that go back to at least Tang dynasty China, but its the obvious example

[ January 16, 2009, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
800 people isn't a small town. It's a gas station.

There is a gas station. There's also a pizza place, two bars (one of which makes better pizza than the pizza place), a bank, a funeral home, a public library, a hair cutter, a hardware store, a feed store and probably some other businesses that are hidden well enough that I haven't found them yet.

Anyhow, we're officially called a village. [Razz]

--Mel

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
There is a tendency in America to romanticize small town life.

Speaking for myself, for as long as I can remember, in general current popular entertainment has portrayed small towns as full of clueless hicks, crazed bigots, and weirdo cults.

The "sweetness and light" portrayals tended to come from entertainment of an earlier vintage than my own lifespan.

Again, speaking only for myself.

Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :

When I was in high school, our town had a traffic light installed at the intersection.

Exciting times.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
The "sweetness and light" portrayals tended to come from entertainment of an earlier vintage than my own lifespan.

I take you either don't listen to a Prairie Home Companion or don't consider it popular entertainment.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
in general current popular entertainment has portrayed small towns as full of clueless hicks, crazed bigots, and weirdo cults

That's only when you're driving through them. In other films, they're presented as redemptive opportunities for high-powered city folk who need to get back in touch with themselves and "real" people.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

It sounds like he just watches/watched more X-Files.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

I take it you skimmed over the part of my post where I said "in general". [Smile]

Have you read Garrison Keillor's prose work, by the way? There's a lot of bitter, angry, snide stuff that never makes it onto his shows, a good bit of it aimed at small towns.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
in general current popular entertainment has portrayed small towns as full of clueless hicks, crazed bigots, and weirdo cults
That's only when you're driving through them. In other films, they're presented as redemptive opportunities for high-powered city folk who need to get back in touch with themselves and "real" people.

And if you hybidize those two, you get a small town full of real people who are clueless, crazed and weird that offers a high-powered city doctor a chance to redeem get in touch with himself: i.e. Norther Exposure.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That's only when you're driving through them. In other films, they're presented as redemptive opportunities for high-powered city folk who need to get back in touch with themselves and "real" people.

Or as lame, backwards yokels who get taught how to be modern and cool by the worldly, wise city folk.

Again, speaking in general, most of the current entertainment I've watched in my life tends towards "Small towns=Foolish, Backward, Silly." [Smile]

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
I take it you skimmed over the part of my post where I said "in general".

Have you read Garrison Keillor's prose work, by the way? There's a lot of bitter, angry, snide stuff that never makes it onto his shows, a good bit of it aimed at small towns.

Yup, but I think the shows qualify as popular entertainment and the books really don't.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

I asked if you read them. I did not say they were as popular as his radio show.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

quote:
And if you hybidize those two, you get a small town full of real people who are clueless, crazed and weird that offers a high-powered city doctor a chance to redeem get in touch with himself: i.e. Norther Exposure.

While they were weird, I think in general the show portrayed the city doctor as the one who was more clueless and crazed. Chris Stevens, Ruth-Anne Miller, Marilyn Whirlwind, and to a lesser extent Ed Chigliak all seem possessed of a quiet wisdom, and their indifference toward superficial norms is, I think, portrayed as a virtue. Maurice Minnifield is crazed, but also an outsider. But there are definitely a lot of weird characters.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I saw Doc Hollywood over the Christmas break.

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :

I'd say a significant portion of Keillor's radio show is parody, though realistic enough for people to relate to and find humor in. It doesn't make it any less funny, but he's not exactly encouraging everyone to move to Lake Woebegone to act the way the people in his stories act.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I think the biggest part of it actually goes back to Sartre: living in a city, you are forced to regularly encounter things which challenge your worldview.

I think that is a big part of it. Cities tend to have a lower percentage of people who are just like you.

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :

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.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

My dad was watching it. On a similiar note, I went to a Jazz game and talked about football.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I think the biggest part of it actually goes back to Sartre: living in a city, you are forced to regularly encounter things which challenge your worldview.
I think that is a big part of it. Cities tend to have a lower percentage of people who are just like you.

Which is the flip side of one of the reasons people say they prefer small towns -- they enjoy being in and feeling like part of a more close-knit community.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

And it is easier for some people to be close knit with people who are just like them.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

It's easier for almost everybody.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

You think so?

Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :

I think two factors come into play:
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.

2)City folk certainly don't feel any inferiority with regard to small towns. The impersonality of big city life etc etc make it easy to feel bouts of disillusionment, and at such times it's nice to romanticize an alternative.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Yes.

Of course, I'm not taking as literal your statement "just like them".

eta: And I don't think you were. It's possible that we're actually talking about different things, translating "just like them" into different things.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think the biggest part of it actually goes back to Sartre: living in a city, you are forced to regularly encounter things which challenge your worldview.
I think that is a big part of it. Cities tend to have a lower percentage of people who are just like you.

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.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

BY "just like them" I mean look like them, have the same or similar religion, have about the same amount of money and education, share a similar ethnic background, have families that are structure the same way, and so forth.

What do you mean?

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

quote:
Small town folk feel looked down on by city folk so (a) they push a positive image of small towns to combat this

The places to "push" information are all in large cities. Pretty much by defnition, people living in small towns don't command audiences large enough to push information.

Bloggers and the Internet being an exciting source of exception, but even with those, the most widely read sites are run from large cities. That's what pooling resources can do for you.

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:

As very much a pastoral idealist, I think a lot of it goes to the relative lack of anonymity in a small town versus a big city. I think people like feeling "part" of something, and I think people believe that ideal is better realized in rural communities. Or at least, from my personal perspective, that's largely the draw of a rural community.

It also has to do, IMO, with a belief in the stabilizing influence of land ownership; if you're tied to a place by ownership, you tend to be more thoughtful in how you treat it, as well as the respect you give to other's property, or so I imagine the thinking goes.

This necessarily supposes that life in a big city or a small town, the "type" of life it is, has all that much to do with crime. It seems more likely to me that criminals go to big cities because they are places with more opportunities to commit crimes. Perhaps it's true that big cities tend to "allow" this kind of thing more, but that's all to do with the beaurocracies and politics of many people living together. I don't honestly think individuals are more tolerant of anti-social behavior simply because they live in certain places, or choose to live in them. Your expectations adjust, but crime is crime, and necessarily outside reasonable expectations of behavior.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Depends on the type of crime anyways:

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.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm

So if you particularly fear getting killed, avoid rural areas. If you particularly fear property crime and assault, avoid towns. [Wink]

Note: What they call small urban areas is more what we would call towns rather than small cities (or what I would call anyways)

Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

quote:
Small town folk feel looked down on by city folk so (a) they push a positive image of small towns to combat this
The places to "push" information are all in large cities. Pretty much by defnition, people living in small towns don't command audiences large enough to push information.

Bloggers and the Internet being an exciting source of exception, but even with those, the most widely read sites are run from large cities. That's what pooling resources can do for you.

I did not mean to imply that they have an active campaign to promote small town living, just that they are more likely to emphasize the positives when interacting with outsiders.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

I mean that it is easier for people who are more like each other to form a close-knit, cohesive community than it is for people who are very different from each other.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I think the biggest part of it actually goes back to Sartre: living in a city, you are forced to regularly encounter things which challenge your worldview.
I think that is a big part of it. Cities tend to have a lower percentage of people who are just like you.

While true in one, in practical experience it often runs the other way. When I've lived in larger cities, everyone in my neighborhood has been of the same socio-economic class, I've gone to church with people who come from the same small area of town and therefore belong to the same socio-economic group, most of the people who I work with have a similar educational and socio-economic background, so although the city itself is very diverse, I rarely interact meaningfully with anyone who isn't in my socio-economic background.

My experience in smaller towns is just the opposite. Even very small towns have rich and poor, respectable citizens and reprobates and since you know everyone, you are much more likely to have friends and associates across a wide spectrum of socio-economic groups.

I think the biggest difference between big cities and small towns is that in a big city you interact regularly with strangers and are a stranger to most of the people who surround you. In town of 800, you most likely know everyone in town.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

What do you mean by "like each other"? If your definition is like mine, I would say that it is perfectly possible for people who are not like each other to form community. And that people should, if it is hard for them, get some practice at it.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

For the purposes of this discussion, your definition is OK.

quote:
I would say that it is perfectly possible for people who are not like each other to form community.

Of course it's possible. I just said that it is more difficult.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I don't think that it is more difficult for everybody.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

In order to form any kind of community, you need to have something in common. The more things you have in common, the easier it is associate with each other.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Again, I don't think that is true for everyone.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Exactly.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Depends on the type of crime anyways:

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.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm

So if you particularly fear getting killed, avoid rural areas. If you particularly fear property crime and assault, avoid towns.

Note: What they call small urban areas is more what we would call towns rather than small cities (or what I would call anyways)

Wow, There were only 658 murders in all of Canada in 2005, that's only 1/3 the murder rate in the US and less than 1/6th the murder rate in large cities in the US.

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 by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

"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.)

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

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.

I dare you to say that again!

*Brandishes weapon menacingly*

-Bok

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :

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.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

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.

Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :

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.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I"m sure that it would be idylic for your friend. For a lot of people - myself included - it would be stifling and dull.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

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.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

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. [Smile]

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

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.

Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :

I have lots of fun Small Town opinions.

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.

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

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.

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :

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.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

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. [Big Grin]

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. [Big Grin]

(hides from Bok)

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :

SenojRetep

Small "western" towns are not all alike eather.

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.

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:

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.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

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.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

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 [Wink]

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

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.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

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.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm

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.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050621/dq050621b-eng.htm

Meh. Doesn't seem particularly substantial to me.

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :

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).

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

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.

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

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.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

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).

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

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.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

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.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

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.

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :

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.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

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.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:

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.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

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.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

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.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

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.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

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?

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

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.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

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.

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :

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.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

I'm not sure what there is to admire about the '50s that wasn't more admirable about the '20s.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

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.

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

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.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

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.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
That was cool.

Sure, but it wasn't particularly admirable. It was a side effect of things that were admirable in the '40s.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Jhai: I don't have much time to post right now but I thought I'd jump to this point as it seems to be our biggest disagreement.

quote:
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.

Let me respond with something I already wrote.

quote:
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.

I should have written this a bit more clearly. I did not mean to say that when all is said and done that "fondness" receives the lion's share of my feelings towards the 1950s. All I am trying to say is that there was enough that was good in the 1950s that I am able to find things to be fond of. I personally would not want to live in the 1950s, there is far too much about now that I find far better.

You noted that I did not say that the 1950s were bad, again this was a failure to communicate. When I mentioned my grandmother it was an attempt to show that I easily recognize that living in the 1950s brought certain attitudes that are terrible and are not easily removed. Racism as much as politeness must be considered when we think about the 1950s.

Am I less repulsive now?

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I never said that you were repulsive, I said that the attitude you were displaying was disgraceful. Please do not put words in my mouth. And thank you for clarifying your position.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Jhai, you're overreacting.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Tom, with that in mind then the bad things about the 50s came from much earlier. They sure didn't appear wholly-born from nowhere in 1950.

Once someone's decided that something is bad and saying anything good about it is a screaming offense, then it's not a conversation. They'll grasp at anything to shore up the black and white position.

Time periods really are more complex than that. Everything is more complex than that.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

kat, I don't know if you're referring to me, but I never said that "saying anything good about<the 1950s> was a screaming offense" - in fact, I specifically said that it's perfectly okay to find certain things good about the 1950s. My point was that it is not right to find the 1950s "good" overall or to make the claim that only people "without hearts" don't remember that time period fondly. It was an era where racism was rampant, people were killed for dating or marrying interracially, and women were denied many rights.

After I made these points, BB clarified his position & I thanked him.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

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.

I guess you and I mean different things when we say "real". If you take a true story and cut all the bad parts out, it isn't a true story any more. The parts you've left in may have really happened, but the story itself is no longer an accurate portrayal of reality.

Families in the 1940s and 50s were in fact more likely to all gather round the same table for dinner every night like you see in Norman Rockwell paintings, but the paintings don't tell you that Mom was wearing an apron because she only had 2 dresses and all the laundry had to be washed by hand and pressed with an iron that was heated on a wood stove. The pictures don't tell you that it was legal for a man to beat his wife if dinner wasn't served on time. There are no Normal Rockwell paintings of children with polio in hospital isolation wards. There are no brown or black faces in those pictures, no empty plates, no soup kitchens or jails.

Yes, the virtues that many people extoll in the past or in present day small towns did exist (at least in some places sometimes), but they still do. When I moved last year, friends family and neighbors came out to help us on both ends of the move. When my home was robbed last Friday, everyone in the neighborhood rallied together offering support and friendship, Three years ago when my MIL was sick with cancer and unable to care for her yard, the neighbors got together and donated both time and money to replant her dead lawn and continued watering, mowing and caring for her yard for over a year. And she didn't live in a small town, she lived in a lower middle class suburb. The neighbors who chipped weren't members of her church or even the same church groups.

I pretty confident that those virtues all exist in nearly every community today just as much as they did in the 1950s. But in the present, we can't just white wash away all the bad things and pretend its ideal. That is much easy to do with the past.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... There are no brown or black faces in those pictures, no empty plates, no soup kitchens or jails.

Well, there is this one which kinda adds to your point.

Considering that this actually took place in the 1960s in an actual city, I daresay I doubt I* would feel much fondness for a small town in the 50s.

(Can't find any Chinese faces yet)

Edit to add: A few more with descriptions
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/02/norman_rockwell_and_the_civil.html

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I think that people underestimate Rockwell. While many of his pictures was "idyllic", he could and did create pictures that went beneath the surface.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

You can call a time happy without it being perfect. In fact, that is the only way to call a time happy. There are many things that are better now, but not everything. If you can't call the 50s happy because some things were bad, then there is no such thing as a happy time, and there never will be.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Great links Mucus. Those aren't Norman Rockwell paintings that typically make the calenders and I was not familiar with them. It appears I have been familiar only with the myth of Norman Rockwell and not the reality.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
You can call a time happy without it being perfect. In fact, that is the only way to call a time happy. There are many things that are better now, but not everything. If you can't call the 50s happy because some things were bad, then there is no such thing as a happy time, and there never will be.

Who called any time happy? It hasn't happened in this thread, certainly.

Personally, I would say that the 1950s would not have been a happy time for me, or for the vast majority of my friends.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I think the point that people are trying to make is not that there was nothing good about the 1950s; it is that life was good for only a certain group of people and we tend, in our nostalgia, to only see those people.

Much like being wistful about the antebellum South. There was much that was lovely and graceful about it but the price for that gracefullness was slavery. For lots of people, that society was pretty terrible.

For many, the price of the 1950s fell on repressed minorities and women.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

The price of 2000s also falls on minorities of women disproportionately.

I have a problem with nostalgia in general, but it's something humans have been doing for millenia and will continue to do, no matter how many people bristle and growl at it.

The prosperity of the 50s made the reforms and movements of the 60s possible and conceivable. If it had been another decade filled with nothign but poverty and war and a shrinking economy, I doubt the movements of the 60s would have found enough traction to stick. A time doesn't have to be perfect to deserve praise, and a little wistful for a robust economy with low interest rates that wasn't built on vapor and card tricks is quite appropriate right now.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think the point that people are trying to make is not that there was nothing good about the 1950s; it is that life was good for only a certain group of people and we tend, in our nostalgia, to only see those people.
...
For many, the price of the 1950s fell on repressed minorities and women.

Other groups we may not think of when we think of the fifties are those who were institutionalized for medical and/or psychiatric reasons. Forced sterilization, abuse without recourse, the shame of having a family member hidden away with Down syndrome, lack of effective psychiatric treatments for some conditions (at least, lack of anything more sophisticated than being tied in a chair and force-fed and drugged into submission). So much of what makes life visibly more difficult is that it is much harder now to avoid seeing that which is problematic.

---

Added: I'd agree that the social infrastructure of the fifties made for a more pleasant experience for a certain group of people, and that those people count, too. I'd also hold that part of that pleasantness was predicated on a strict segregation from certain unpleasantnesses that others were unable to avoid.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

On the other hand, many of the people who in the 1950s would have been institutionalized are nowadays aborted before they are born. I'm not convinced that makes this decade better.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
On the other hand, many of the people who in the 1950s would have been institutionalized are nowadays aborted before they are born. I'm not convinced that makes this decade better.

I wasn't saying it did, katharina. I was saying that -- regardless of the picture one sees when one has a mental image of today -- the mental image of that yesterday sometimes comes with invisible holes.

I'm perfectly happy myself to have you wax as nostalgic as you like about any time period in history that you chose, and I won't argue publicly with you about such choices.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
The price of 2000s also falls on minorities of women disproportionately.

Quite true. The difference is that, now, we see it. Which tends to make things "uglier" for for those of us who mightn't have seen the more hidden bad parts of previous generations.

quote:

I have a problem with nostalgia in general, but it's something humans have been doing for millenia and will continue to do, no matter how many people bristle and growl at it.

The prosperity of the 50s made the reforms and movements of the 60s possible and conceivable. If it had been another decade filled with nothign but poverty and war and a shrinking economy, I doubt the movements of the 60s would have found enough traction to stick. A time doesn't have to be perfect to deserve praise, and a little wistful for a robust economy with low interest rates that wasn't built on vapor and card tricks is quite appropriate right now.

Also true, as long as we keep in balance how that happened. The robust economy in the 1950s has, I would imagine, something to do with WWII and Korea and the growing "military industrial complex" all of which had their downsides as well.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

quote:
I'm perfectly happy myself to have you wax as nostalgic as you like about any time period in history that you chose, and I won't argue publicly with you about such choices.

I think that's nicer. I don't think you were directing this to me, as I said in the same post that I don't like nostalgia, but I think it is nicer and more congenial and respectful of people to, when someone does wax nostalgic, as people do, to let them and not jump all over them. The circumstances of the 50s are not coming back - for better and for worse - so nostalgia about it doesn't hurt.

I suppose that some people might wax nostalgic as code for a wish to renew oppression, but that is such a harsh and uncharitable judgment that it would be better to confirm the unlikely incident before jumping on them. Considering nostalgia in general has a long and storied history, it is much more like that the speaker has normal intentions and not a secret wish to destroy.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I do not think that nostalgia is a good thing - certainly not something to be encouraged. I do think it can have negative consequences, just like all idealization. In my mind, it is similar in moral status to, say, envy - not something that shows depravity on the part of a person, but not something to be proud of by any means.

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :

quote:
I think it is nicer and more congenial and respectful of people to, when someone does wax nostalgic, as people do, to let them and not jump all over them. The circumstances of the 50s are not coming back - for better and for worse - so nostalgia about it doesn't hurt.

It does when your nostalgia effects your opinions on legislation in the here and now, which it usually does it seems.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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.
...

quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
... Other groups we may not think of when we think of the fifties are those who were institutionalized for medical and/or psychiatric reasons.

Hmmm, a quote from Norman Rockwell that may be applicable to both these exchanges.

quote:
Maybe as I grew up and found the world wasn’t the perfectly pleasant place I had thought it to be, I unconsciously decided that, even if it wasn’t an ideal world, it should be and painted only the ideal aspects of it—pictures in which there were no drunken slatterns or self-centered mothers [Rockwell is alluding to his own mother here], in which, on the contrary, there were only Foxy Grandpas who played football with the kids, and boys fished from logs and got up circuses in the back yard. If there was sadness in this created world of mine, it was a pleasant sadness. If there were problems, they were humorous problems. The people in my pictures aren’t mentally ill [as Rockwell’s wife Mary was] or deformed. The situations they get into are commonplace, everyday situations, not the agonizing crises and tangles of life.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/314405.html

In other words, the ideal that Norman Rockwell painted *wasn't* real, not even to him at the time. Whatever mythology Americans may have constructed around him may not have been his intent (in that he wasn't attempting to describe reality).

Edit to add: There's this interesting bit too

quote:
There is no overt sex in Norman Rockwell’s paintings, no violence, no real or insoluble unhappiness, no poverty or serious illness or crime, and, until late in his career, no black people except for the occasional porter. (Rockwell, it should be said, had long wanted to depict African Americans but was forbidden to do so by his editors at the Saturday Evening Post, who feared that the mere sight of them might upset most of their readers, and who were, moreover, probably right.)

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Huh. Thanks for the clips, Mucus.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Mucus: Thanks for all those links. One of my concerns was to accomplish what you have so completely done. Norman Rockwell definitely had some liberal leanings that I think many people are unaware of. Also you made the statement that there are no Asian faces, here is one. She is on the right towards the bottom, (I believe you linked to a page that contains this very picture.)

It was interesting to hear Rockwell's take on his own work.

Jhai: You are right you did not actually call me repulsive, I typically find that those who are disgraceful are also repulsive. But I suppose that is me taking liberties with definitions that I ought not to. I do sometimes get the impression that you don't much like me.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I think the reason that people take unqualified nostalgia personally is that it tends to be dismissive of the people who didn't have it so good. It seems like it it either minimalizing their suffering or making them invisible again. Of course that is not always the intent, but it is the effect and it is very personal.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jhai: You are right you did not actually call me repulsive, I typically find that those who are disgraceful are also repulsive. But I suppose that is me taking liberties with definitions that I ought not to. I do sometimes get the impression that you don't much like me.

Here you go, taking liberties again. [Wink]

I didn't say that you are disgrace, just that the attitude that you were presenting (inadvertently, apparently) was. To me, there's a big difference between the two. It's just like someone can do or say a racist thing without actually being a racist.

While I've not kept close track of our conversations together, I can say that I don't not like you. I don't really have an opinion on you. I know we've clashed in the past, so I'd imagine it's accurate to say that I dislike some of your attitudes or beliefs. How much those attitudes or beliefs are the "core you" isn't something anyone but you can know, but I try not to presume that any belief is, unless told otherwise by the person in question.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jhai: You are right you did not actually call me repulsive, I typically find that those who are disgraceful are also repulsive. But I suppose that is me taking liberties with definitions that I ought not to. I do sometimes get the impression that you don't much like me.
Here you go, taking liberties again. I didn't say that you are disgrace, just that the attitude that you were presenting (inadvertently, apparently) was. To me, there's a big difference between the two. It's just like someone can do or say a racist thing without actually being a racist.

While I've not kept close track of our conversations together, I can say that I don't not like you. I don't really have an opinion on you. I know we've clashed in the past, so I'd imagine it's accurate to say that I dislike some of your attitudes or beliefs. How much those attitudes or beliefs are the "core you" isn't something anyone but you can know, but I try not to presume that any belief is, unless told otherwise by the person in question.

I see, well here's hoping that no wars will be declared in the future. [Smile]

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Also you made the statement that there are no Asian faces, here is one. She is on the right towards the bottom, (I believe you linked to a page that contains this very picture.)

I did link to and notice that, but it wasn't quite what I was looking for. I should have been more explicit, I was looking for pictures depicting Chinese Americans in small town America (or American cities for that matter).

Given that last quote, I'm not too optimistic.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
I'm perfectly happy myself to have you wax as nostalgic as you like about any time period in history that you chose, and I won't argue publicly with you about such choices.

I find this a perfectly kind and polite attitude in most public situations but in a discussion like this one where the stated objective is to explore the reasons that people wax nostalgic about small town life I think different rules apply. You can't really discuss the question if you can't discuss whether peoples nostaligic views are in fact accurate.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

An inherent part of nostalgia is its subjectiveness.

Complaining about others' nostalgia is like complaining that brussel sprouts are disgusting no matter how you cook them.

(By the way-- with bacon.)

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Also-- are we talking about nostalgia or small towns now?

Small towns haven't disappeared; I think that we can't wax nostalgic for them, if some still exist.

The 1950s are long gone; they may be subject to nostalgia.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Mucus, Thanks for the quote from Rockwell. I think they touch on the heart of the question I originally posed.

I think many people cling to an idealized view of small towns or by gone eras because they want so much to believe in a world without tangled problems or agonizing crises. They choose to believe that world exists somewhere or existed sometime because it makes the complex troubles of reality easier to bear.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
An inherent part of nostalgia is its subjectiveness.

Complaining about others' nostalgia is like complaining that brussel sprouts are disgusting no matter how you cook them.

(By the way-- with bacon.)

With bacon, sour cream, parmesan cheese, and butter.

Or roasted.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
I think many people cling to an idealized view of small towns or by gone eras because they want so much to believe in a world without tangled problems or agonizing crises. They choose to believe that world exists somewhere or existed sometime because it makes the complex troubles of reality easier to bear.

I think that trying to guess at strangers' internal motivations is pointless.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:
I think many people cling to an idealized view of small towns or by gone eras because they want so much to believe in a world without tangled problems or agonizing crises. They choose to believe that world exists somewhere or existed sometime because it makes the complex troubles of reality easier to bear.
I think that trying to guess at strangers' internal motivations is pointless.

I think you're motivations for saying this are suspect Scott. [Wink]

edit: Also, we don't need to necessarily guess. In a forum this vast there may be people who can honestly state why they wax nostalgic about certain things. Those reasons are certainly stronger than mere guesswork.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
An inherent part of nostalgia is its subjectiveness.

Complaining about others' nostalgia is like complaining that brussel sprouts are disgusting no matter how you cook them.

(By the way-- with bacon.)
With bacon, sour cream, parmesan cheese, and butter.

Or roasted.

Seems an unfortunate waste of bacon.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Small towns haven't disappeared; I think that we can't wax nostalgic for them, if some still exist.

Perhaps nostalgia isn't the right word, but there does seem to be a great deal in common with the sentimental yearning for the past and sentimental idealization of small town life.

Both the OED and Websters' equate nostalgia with "homesickness" or "yearning for familiar conditions" in their first definition.

I think the nostaligic idealization of the 1950s often reflects not necessarily a yearning for the familiar but a yearning for "simpler times" which is not all that different from the "yearning for a simpler life" that is often associated with small towns.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
An inherent part of nostalgia is its subjectiveness.

Complaining about others' nostalgia is like complaining that brussel sprouts are disgusting no matter how you cook them.

(By the way-- with bacon.)

More like complaining about how pretty people think conflict diamonds are.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:
I think many people cling to an idealized view of small towns or by gone eras because they want so much to believe in a world without tangled problems or agonizing crises. They choose to believe that world exists somewhere or existed sometime because it makes the complex troubles of reality easier to bear.
I think that trying to guess at strangers' internal motivations is pointless.

Then why are you even participating in this thread when its stated goal was to try to understand why people idealized small town life if you think trying to understand what motivates human behavior is pointless.

And BTW, I think there is a world of difference between trying to understand what kinds of things motivate a very common human behavior and making judgements about what motivates a particular individual in a specific circumstance.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
I'm perfectly happy myself to have you wax as nostalgic as you like about any time period in history that you chose, and I won't argue publicly with you about such choices.
I find this a perfectly kind and polite attitude in most public situations but in a discussion like this one where the stated objective is to explore the reasons that people wax nostalgic about small town life I think different rules apply. You can't really discuss the question if you can't discuss whether peoples nostaligic views are in fact accurate.

Oh, I'm fine with the discussion in general and think that talking about it this way is a good idea.

---

Added:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
And BTW, I think there is a world of difference between trying to understand what kinds of things motivate a very common human behavior and making judgements about what motivates a particular individual in a specific circumstance.

Yep.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
Then why are you even participating in this thread when its stated goal was to try to understand why people idealized small town life if you think trying to understand what motivates human behavior is pointless.

I'm participating right now because you made a judgment about people's motivations that I don't think anyone is intelligent (or widely informed) enough to make.

You haven't, as far as I've seen, tried to understand why people believe the way they do; you've instead shown that their beliefs are not wholly correct.

There's a difference, Rabbit, in trying to understand a belief and trying to convince the believer that their belief is incorrect.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Scott, I'm really not sure what I've done to cause you to respond with such hostility.

Mucus posted a quote from Normal Rockwell in which he describes what he believes to be his motivations for painting an idealized world. I speculated that others might have similar reasons for maintaining an idealized mental picture of small town life or life in the past. I don't see why that is objectionable.

I never claimed or implied that all people who think that living in a small town is nice or who are nostalgic for the 1950s have that motivation. I never claimed that every one who liked small town life had an idealized romantic notion of it. In fact I started off by saying that I preferred living in small communities myself, even though I know they rarely live up to the romantic stereotype.

And quite frankly, I think most people are intelligent enough and sufficiently well informed to conclude the the motivations Norman Rockwell describes as his own, are likely common motivations. If you have specific reasons to believe that Norman Rockwell's motivations are highly unusual and shouldn't be taken as representative of any common human motivation, please elaborate. Otherwise I think you are just trying to pick a fight that I have no interest in having.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Is this the part where Rabbit and Scott kiss? [Evil]

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :

Off Topic:

quote:
I take you either don't listen to a Prairie Home Companion or don't consider it popular entertainment.

I always took Keillor as a city guy. When he talks about small towns, he damns them with faint praise. The Wobegon townies seem a bit rubish and cowardly. From the episodes I've heard, people with ambitions move out, and only when and if the city breaks them do they come back, broken.

I can tell you why I'm likely to idealize small towns: a person's worth would seem more manifest and appreciated. In my idealized version, the smaller the town, the smaller the machinery. There is a kind of freedom that goes with not having to wade through administration. It's kind of the same reason to do business with independent stores as opposed to chains. Now, I'm a city guy, but I'm not so much pro-city as anti-suburb.

[ March 04, 2009, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :

sigh... Nostalgia ain't what it useta be.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I miss Old Hatrack.

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Jhai, you're overreacting.

Wow, it's so easy for a white male to decide that! The 50s were indeed repulsive in this extremely important aspect of their character. In most of the U.S. it would have been a capital crime (punishable by instant vigilante justice) for Jhai to hold hands with her husband then, and illegal for her to marry him. That sort of puts the whole time in an entirely different, and much less benign light for her than for some other people who are remembering it.

Much of what made upper-middle-class white life idyllic then was that the darkies did all the hardest dirtiest jobs which my mother still refers to as '(n-word) work'. Let me repeat again for those who don't see it. A society in which there are plenty of servants and oppressed people who are forced to stay in "their place" can be very nice for those who are on top. Those of us who don't identify with the ones who were on top can see the same time and place as ghastly and oppressive, and feel no fondness for it whatsoever. It's quite a legitimate point of view, and one everyone should take care to understand.

[ March 05, 2009, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

And, to clarify, my mom knows how racist that idea is and uses the term ironically.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

She was not over-reacting to something in the fifties. She was over-reacting to the person she was talking to.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
Wow, it's so easy for a white male to decide that!

Oh, I am SO glad you brought this up. I mean, obviously, you're off base in terms of context of this thread, but within the speculative fiction writing community, there has been a...furor over the type of thing you're accusing me of.

Look up 'cultural appropriation' sometime.

I'm curious as to why you think I (white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-class) *can't*, or don't sympathize/empathize with racial/gender/whatever difficulties.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

Point of order: I don't think she actually said you can't or don't sympathize/empathize, just that it's much easier for white males to find the 50s nostalgic than people who belong to groups that had fewer civil rights during that time period. Which is pretty much a true statement - not all white males, obviously, but comparatively more than, say, black women.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:

I'm curious as to why you think I (white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-class) *can't*, or don't sympathize/empathize with racial/gender/whatever difficulties.

Possibly it has something to do with the nostalgia that many of them have for the 1950s.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Indeed, it seems totally unsurprising that people would sympathize/emphasize more with people that look or act like themselves. The only question is to what degree it applies with white Christian males and what special circumstances in America have encouraged (or inhibited) this.

(And yes, there has been more than a few articles about the subject on various blogs on racial relations and the like)

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Possibly it has something to do with the nostalgia that many of them have for the 1950s.

Eh.
Maybe, maybe not.

code:

	        white	male	Christian 
Mucus		        1	
Jhai	        1               ?		
TomD	        1	1	
The Rabbit	?		1
katharina	1		1
kmbboots	1		1
Tatiana	        1		1
BlackBlade	1	1	1
Scott R	        1	1	1

This is for the last two pages for posters that have given a relatively clear opinion. I left out heterosexual and middle-class because I simply don't have enough information on that front. Plus, there are bound to be mistakes (I seriously can't be the only non-white person here?).

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

My point is not that white male Christians can't sympathize - clearly many of them do. MY point is that nostalgia for a time when others were oppressed demonstrates a lack of sympathy for those others.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

How about "may" demonstrate? Saying that it always demonstrates a lack of sympathy is assuming things about their thoughts and motives you can't possibly know for sure. Since there are many reasons a person might have nostalgia for that time and a lack of sympathy for the oppressed is only one of them, surely it would be better not to assume the very worst of people off the bat.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
MY point is that nostalgia for a time when others were oppressed demonstrates a lack of sympathy for those others.

Does your adherence to Catholicism indicate a lack of sympathy for Galileo?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Oh, come now. Catholicism is silly, but its catechism does not include "I long for the days of the Papal Inquisition".

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Possibly for the first time - what KoM wrote. Well most of what KoM wrote.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Kate, do you recognize that there were good parts to the fifties as well as bad?

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Mucus: Rabbit is indeed white.

kmbboots: Why does nostalgia for a period of time necessitate that the whole thing be brought wholesale back? Many people have suggested that some of the positive things mentioned regarding the 1950s were only available because certain negative elements also existed. For example friendly gated communities could only exist because other races and creeds were oppressed and kept out. Mothers were in every home tending their children because women as a gender were shackled to the kitchen and not permitted to leave.

I can agree that in some ways this may be partly or wholly true. I disagree thought that every positive thing germane to the 1950s was predicated on a disgraceful principle. I posited politeness, I'd also suggest general respect for one's elders, and love for one's country. Yes every single one of those principles can be taken to excess and has been.

Does my enjoyment of the present require that I also be unsympathetic towards Darfur refugees and every woman that was likely raped today?

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Who on earth brought rapists and Darfur into the conversation! It was bad enough to introduce the Inquisition.

A sincere acknowledgement of the downside while you are indulging your nostalgia would probably suffice.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Mucus: Rabbit is indeed white.

White Rabbit??

Actual, I think I'm more of a pinkish tan with brown spots.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Suffice for what? No one is allowed to express happiness without qualifying it? If someone says "I think today is a good day." they are remiss unless they apologize to the people who are not having good days?

The same principle that Jhai freaked out about concerning the nostalgia for the 50s is exactly what makes it okay to bring Darfur into the conversation.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Mucus: Rabbit is indeed white.
White Rabbit??

Actual, I think I'm more of a pinkish tan with brown spots.

That's probably quite true these days. I always imagine this picture whenever I think about you these days Rabbit. [Smile]

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Suffice to demonstrate that one is not unsympathetic.

If someone is having a good day because of conditions that are only possible at the expense of others then, yes, I think that acknowledgment of that cost is appropriate.

ETA: For example: "Antebellum society was so graceful and lovely. I wish there was some way to recreate that without slavery."

[ March 05, 2009, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Can you be nostaligic for a time period you didn't live through?

Honestly, most the people arguing this didn't live through the 1950s. Its possible that back in the 50s families were closer, spouses more loving, parents more caring, neighbors more friendly, skies were bluer, the air and water were cleaner and that people as a whole were more trustworthy, thrifty, loyal, clean and reverent. I don't know, I didn't live then. If those virtues really did exist in the 1950s, then yeah I'd say that part of the 50s was great.

But I'm skeptical that the 1950s were really like that. Those are the same things people have been saying about "the good old days" for at least 2000 years.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Correlation is not causation, Kate. Do you think every single thing good thing that happened in the fifties was based directly on bad things happening for other people? All of it? Every bit? The entire fifties was a zero sum game?

Are you seriously comparing all of America in the fifties to the ante-bellum South?

If you are, then you don't understand history. If you are not, then you owe BB an apology for being so careless with him.

Rabbit: While that may be what YOU mean if you had said it, that is not the only possible meaning of the phrase. Attacking people for what you would have meant instead finding out what they actually meant is a problem. Can you see why?

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Can you be nostaligic for a time period you didn't live through?

Honestly, most the people arguing this didn't live through the 1950s.
...

Thats why I feel pseudo-detached from the discussion, not only did I not live through it but very very few people like me did due to a combination of completely and explicitly excluding Chinese immigration up to the 40s and extremely tight quotes through to the 60s.

In fact, even my parents choose to immigrate to Canada rather than the US in the 60s due to persistent and systematic discrimination up to today (as did many others, which is neatly reflected by the fact that the Chinese population in Canada is four times that of the US by %).

Which is probably one other factor in the mix, while things are light-years better than in the 50s, those that still have to deal with the lingering effects of that era are naturally much more resistant to any hints of back-sliding.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

The Rabbit: Your list is too extensive, I don't think anyone is arguing that the 1950s were all those things, or even that one of those things was totally true.

Over the last 2000 years I'd say many of those things increased and decreased quite significantly.

edit: Incidentally I don't feel I am owed an apology by anyone. Jhai and I have probably had the most heated disagreement in the thread thus far and I think we worked it out alright.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

kat, would you do me a favour and reread my posts in this thread? Pretend that someone else wrote them.

Do I really say what you seem to think I have been saying?

ETA: Start with this one:

quote:
I think the point that people are trying to make is not that there was nothing good about the 1950s; it is that life was good for only a certain group of people and we tend, in our nostalgia, to only see those people.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I have a problem with your stance, not with you. I honestly disagree that in order to say something is good and not be offensive, you must qualify any positive statement with disclaimers. Demanding that he include disclaimers or else be thought a joyous oppressor seems very rude and uncharitable to me.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

I don't think there was anything good about the '50s that was uniquely good about the '50s, or even was a product of that time period itself.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
The Rabbit: Your list is too extensive, I don't think anyone is arguing that the 1950s were all those things, or even that one of those things was totally true.

Perhaps then you could give me some specific things which you think were better in the 1950s than they are now and explain the reasons that have for thinking that's the way things were (since you and I didn't live through that time period).

'''''''''''''''';;;;;;;

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :

I think that Tatiana put it the best:

quote:

Much of what made upper-middle-class white life idyllic then was that the darkies did all the hardest dirtiest jobs which my mother still refers to as '(n-word) work'. Let me repeat again for those who don't see it. A society in which there are plenty of servants and oppressed people who are forced to stay in "their place" can be very nice for those who are on top. Those of us who don't identify with the ones who were on top can see the same time and place as ghastly and oppressive, and feel no fondness for it whatsoever. It's quite a legitimate point of view, and one everyone should take care to understand.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Tatiana is also wrong in claiming total causation. That may be true in some parts of the country, but it wasn't true everywhere.

Among the many problems with it, there are gigantic swaths of the country that didn't even have a minority underclass, much less one large enough to be responsible for the nice life for everyone else.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Irami: Non-white, male Christian or Non-white male non-Christian (or neither)?

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Tom: It's not as if the 1950s spontaneously appeared, of course it is a product of preceding years. Are you saying that anything good in the 1950s was done better in the past, making the entire decade a social devolution?

The Rabbit: Even the things that I think might have been better in the 1950s are not universally true. For instance I mentioned respect for one's elders was probably better in the 1950s than it is now based on literature, movies, documentaries, and on personal experience with today's vernacular. But while your average American person might say sir and ma'am more often there were still plenty of white people referring to their African American elders as "boy" and "lady" or worse.

Or take communities, I do believe there needs to be a homogeneous limit reached before a community can thrive through unity. What factors do and do not work is not something I could say with much accuracy. I do not however believe that only through repression and exclusion can a society break down into communities.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't think there was anything good about the '50s that was uniquely good about the '50s, or even was a product of that time period itself.

:agrees with Tom:

:well, almost:

There were a lot of developments in music that were unique to the '50s. Rock'n'Roll was up-and-coming, and country music began to move out of the hills. Those things were definitely products of the 50s, I think.

I'm trying to determine if I feel the same way about small towns.

...I don't.

There are things that are uniquely good about living in a small town, though I'm sure not everyone would have the same experiences.

From my point of view, though, a lot of the benefits come less from living in a small town than from living nearer to rural areas.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Tatiana is also wrong in claiming total causation. That may be true in some parts of the country, but it wasn't true everywhere.

Among the many problems with it, there are gigantic swaths of the country that didn't even have a minority underclass, much less one large enough to be responsible for the nice life for everyone else.

This whole conversation has been about American society in the 1950s, as a whole. As a whole, American society in the 1950s was disgustingly racist and sexist. You can't talk about American society in the 1950s as a whole without discussing this issue, given that we're talking about conditions that the majority of the population dealt with.

Remember, this whole conversation started off from BB's comment that

quote:
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.

I think Putin's statement is incredibly wrong and misguided as is BB's new version of it, and I think it's notions like this that people are arguing against.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Interesting bit I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning. The driver was listening to an obviously Christian station; the following was broadcast:

quote:
The slippery slope of moral relativism is apparent in today's schools. In the 40's the major discipline issues were talking in class, tardiness, and not doing your homework. Today the major discipline issues are rape, drug abuse, and violence.

I had to wonder at how the commentator was classifying "major." Was it reflective of quantity of complaint? Or did he really think there was no rape, drug use, or violence in the schools back in the 40s?

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Jhai, I think you fundamentally misunderstood the motives behind BB's comment and instead assigned to them the most uncharitable interpretation possible, and then proceeded from there as if your assumptions were true.

You owe him an apology.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Incidentally I don't feel I am owed an apology by anyone. Jhai and I have probably had the most heated disagreement in the thread thus far and I think we worked it out alright.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Incidentally I don't feel I am owed an apology by anyone. Jhai and I have probably had the most heated disagreement in the thread thus far and I think we worked it out alright.

Incidentally you owe me an apology Rabbit for not acknowledging that excellent picture I linked.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

It's nice how kind BB has been in a thread where he didn't need to be [kind].

[ March 05, 2009, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

I'm starting to wonder whether Jhai missed the second part of the quote:

quote:
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."

It's shorthand, to be sure, but it is acknowledging that it was a worse time in an overall sense - hence wanting to go back then is stupid.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It's nice how kind BB has been in a thread where he didn't need to be.

Yep, it's always nice when people bypass opportunities for taking offense.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It's nice how kind BB has been in a thread where he didn't need to be.

Well laying aside that I do not technically "need" to be in any thread in hatrack what exactly do you mean?

I guess in terms of qualifications I am probably one of the last who should be posting here as my personal background is one of cosmopolitan cities and multinational communities.

edit: Too late to delete the post, I misread your post as saying it was nice for me, "to be in a thread" rather than "how kind" I was being. You can disregard the rest of my post I suppose.

KOM: Incidentally what music do you enjoy?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
There were a lot of developments in music that were unique to the '50s. Rock'n'Roll was up-and-coming, and country music began to move out of the hills. Those things were definitely products of the 50s, I think.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Incidentally I don't feel I am owed an apology by anyone. Jhai and I have probably had the most heated disagreement in the thread thus far and I think we worked it out alright.
Incidentally you owe me an apology Rabbit for not acknowledging that excellent picture I linked.

Let me offer my most humble apology. It was indeed a most excellent picture and a spectacular likeness of me on my electric scooter (even if I am not quite as singularly white and my scooter is orange not red_.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It's nice how kind BB has been in a thread where he didn't need to be.
Yep, it's always nice when people bypass opportunities for taking offense.

I see what you did there.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
KOM: Incidentally what music do you enjoy?

'Enjoy'? I don't understand the question. I don't enjoy music, I enjoy sneering at other people's taste in it.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
KOM: Incidentally what music do you enjoy?
'Enjoy'? I don't understand the question. I don't enjoy music, I enjoy sneering at other people's taste in it.

I've suspected as much.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm starting to wonder whether Jhai missed the second part of the quote:

quote:
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."
It's shorthand, to be sure, but it is acknowledging that it was a worse time in an overall sense - hence wanting to go back then is stupid.

I saw the second part. I disagree strongly with the first part - in fact, given the misery of many groups of both Soviet Russia & 1950s America, I'd say that whoever does miss those times has no heart.

Note: I'm not bringing this up to chastise BB. Like him, I think we've settled the issue agreeably enough. But I still think that that quote is wrong.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

Cool. 8)

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
There are things that are uniquely good about living in a small town, though I'm sure not everyone would have the same experiences.

From my point of view, though, a lot of the benefits come less from living in a small town than from living nearer to rural areas.

The thing I like best about the smaller communities I've lived in being close to wilderness where one can find real solitude.

I also like the ease of living within easy walking or cycling distance of everything in town and at the same time being able to easily walk or bike in to farmland, woods or mountains.

I like having a high probability of running into people I know whenever I go to the store, a movie or a restaurant.

I like the feeling of my voice having a measurable impact on the community.

But the smallest towns I've lived in have been in the 10^4 range not the 10^2 range. They've all been college towns in the Western US. My experience is certainly not transferrable to all smaller communities and many people from really small towns would consider the places I've lived big cities.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
given the misery of many groups of both Soviet Russia & 1950s America, I'd say that whoever does miss those times has no heart.

I think this is a judgment that borders on unmerciful, as well as unconsidered.

The intense misery that some groups were subjected to doesn't overwrite the strides made in culture, science, and human rights. Generally, one man's misery should not be allowed to negate another's joy.

It is not honest to take a broad brush and paint an era with a uniform black mark; we want for nuance. It is as tragic to condemn the era as it is to exalt it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Yes, yes, acknowledge the good with the bad, fine. But 'to miss' implies that you would, if you had the power, go back to conditions as they were then. If that's really true, then I think 'no heart' is a fine diagnosis.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

But I'm not saying that there weren't strides made in anything, nor am I saying that misery negates joy. Nor do I "take a broad brush and paint <the> era with a uniform black mark".

These are all things that cannot be reasonably concluded from me saying "whoever misses the 1950s has no heart". You're reading far more into my words than is there.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
'to miss' implies that you would, if you had the power, go back to conditions as they were then.

Not really; I miss Italy quite a bit, but I wouldn't want to apply Italy's immigration policies to the US.

quote:
These are all things that cannot be reasonably concluded from me saying "whoever misses the 1950s has no heart". You're reading far more into my words than is there.

Your argument doesn't suddenly become reasonable just because you say it does. It needs, you know, reason.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

I find it really interesting that I'm the one taking the liberal, inclusive view, here.

[Smile]

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:
These are all things that cannot be reasonably concluded from me saying "whoever misses the 1950s has no heart". You're reading far more into my words than is there.
Your argument doesn't suddenly become reasonable just because you say it does. It needs, you know, reason.

I didn't say that my argument was or was not reasonable, I said that the things you conclude from my words are not reasonable things to conclude. You're free to disagree, of course, but I'd love to hear how you get from what I've said to your conclusions.

I also don't know what you mean by "I'm the one taking the liberal, inclusive view, here." What is that in reference to?

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :

She was not overreacting to the idea that the 50s were an idyllic time.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:

Generally, one man's misery should not be allowed to negate another's joy.

Possibly not, but I think it should mitigate it.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
I'd love to hear how you get from what I've said to your conclusions.

You said: "given the misery of many groups of both Soviet Russia & 1950s America, I'd say that whoever does miss those times has no heart."

You do not appear to be amenable to allowing people to look back on that era with nostalgia; you seem to conclude that if they do miss those days, they lack a heart, because your view of that era seems to be wholly negative.

You are applying your view of an era to a general population, without considering that others have similarly strong feelings in the positive.

Thus my conclusion, supported by your explicit statements.

quote:
She was not overreacting to the idea that the 50s were an idyllic time.

Correct. She was overreacting to BlackBlade's post. It was that overreaction I was addressing, and which you subsequently missed. Is it clear for you now, Tatiana?

quote:
I also don't know what you mean by "I'm the one taking the liberal, inclusive view, here." What is that in reference to?

Well, I haven't said that anyone is stupid, or heartless. I allow that nostalgia for the 50s (or 60s, or 70s-- not the 80s--) is warranted; also that there were terrible things done in those times. And all times.

Generally, people think a traditionalist like me is supposed to be all 'up with the old!'

This is me, being inclusive. I'm taking all viewpoints into account, and giving those that are reasonable (as opposed to extreme) some consideration.

As for liberal-- I just said that one of the good things to come out of the '50s was Rock-n-Roll; that's, like, half of the Democratic platform to celebrities.

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

I don't know you Scott, but if this whole "taking all viewpoints into account, and giving the reasonable ones consideration" is new to you, can I suggest you start off slow? You don't want to be getting too open-minded, your brains might fall out (haha, just a little joke for you there).

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I am against nostalgia for any time, actually, not just the 1950s or Soviet Russia. Generally, I don't think nostalgia is a useful or good emotion.

"you seem to conclude that if they do miss those days, they lack a heart, because your view of that era seems to be wholly negative."

This is blatantly wrong, as I've already said that there are positive things from that era, and I have no problem with people missing those things. Thus, it is logically impossible that my view of that era be wholly negative.

There's a very large difference between saying

quote:
That era, taken as a whole, had overarching negatives

and saying

quote:
that era was wholly negative.

From the first you may conclude, that if the negative aspects are large enough (i.e. they run through the whole of the society) then it's important to not idealize or miss that era as a whole. This is, in fact, my conclusion. From the second you can conclude what you have above - but I have not said the second, so your conclusions don't apply.

Others may have strong opinions in the positive about that era as a whole - and I would judge those opinions to be bad ones.

Edit: to take a more extreme example, consider Spain during the height of the Inquisition. Now, I'm sure there were cool things happening in Spain during that era besides the Inquisition. For the sake of argument, let's say some form of art made great strides. I'm perfectly fine with people saying, "man, I miss the art innovation that took place during the Inquisition period in Spain." I'm not okay with people saying, "man, I miss the Inquisition period in Spain". And the reason why is because, while there may have been cool art innovation taking place during that era, the Inquisition was a key feature of that time period - and you can't escape the effect it had on the era as a whole.

Because basically all societies seen throughout human history have had extremely negative key components, I don't think nostalgia for any time period is a good thing.

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

Haha, Jhai's against nostalgia, that means when they bring back slavery he's not allowed to be nostalgic for the pre-slavery days.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

If they bring back slavery, I'll be too busy fighting against it to have time to be nostalgic.

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

I sort of agree with what 'boots wrote earlier. I can understand certain segments of the population feeling nostalgia for the 50s. Those segments, though, are behooved to remember that they achieved their prosperity, directly or indirectly, under a system of massive injustice. And, yes, that's worth noting, at least as a symbol of respect to those who suffered under that system, and to a much lesser degree, those who might've under different cicrumstances.

Speaking in a public setting, which I consider this to be, I think we all ought to take our audience into account. Part of that, I think, includes recognizing that others in the audience might not have the same experiences of a thing that you did. Obviously, this has reasonable limits, but I don't think this particular discussion is anywhere close to them.

Say, for example, that my girlfriend and I are both nature buffs. So I take her out camping. We hike to the top of a mountain, and at the peak I propose. She says yes, and giddy with excitement we head for home. Once back in civilization we realize that terrorists have flown airplanes into the WTC. Many years later, it would be perfectly understandable to feel nostalgic about that day, but any of us would be shocked to hear "that September 11th was a magical and wondrous day. I sure miss it."

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.

See, that's the thing - I don't think it's productive to "reflect wistfully on the old days". I don't think it's a useful or good thing to do. I might miss not have slavery - but going "gosh darn, the old days were so good and nowadays it just sucks" isn't something I can ever see myself doing.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

This feels a lot like "You should feel really guilty about your nice house and fancy car because there are starving children in Africa." We all have selective empathy and arguably every well-fed middle-class westerner alive today owes their good fortune to the bad fortune of others to some extent and most of us could exchange a minor portion of our position of wealth to, at least on paper, save a number of lives. From this perspective, every luxury item from an Xbox to an electric griddle is a choice to enrich our own lives when we could be saving others.

Our sense of nostalgia, like our sense of present happiness, is extremely contextualized. Indicating longing for the good old days is generally an expression of happiness associate with specific elements that of those days that were experienced, not an endorsement of some sort of synthesis of all the postive and negative factors present in the world at that time.

I feel nostalgia about my childhood, not because the world was wonderful, but because I enjoyed the lack of responsibility and relative freedom. I would never choose to go back, because I have so many other things now that I value more. I also have nostalgia about the early days of my marriage and career. Learning how the world works and how to work with it as an adult was an amazing experience, but again I have other things to learn now and I wouldn't trade now for then.

I don't think the 9/11 example is a fair analogy, as few people in the world associate that date with anything but the terrorist attacks, whereas the 50s have many associations - food fads, dress and music tastes, the mainstreaming of certain new technologies, and yes, a horrible civil rights situation.

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:

quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.
See, that's the thing - I don't think it's productive to "reflect wistfully on the old days". I don't think it's a useful or good thing to do. I might miss not have slavery - but going "gosh darn, the old days were so good and nowadays it just sucks" isn't something I can ever see myself doing.

Well sure, but who says "gosh darn" nowadays, anyway?

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I miss "gosh darn."

I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).

True. But if an individual who lived in the 50s is making the claim, then I think it's hard to separate the personal element from that. I hate hypothetical nostalgia though - the desire to return to a time which one has never experienced.

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :

Yes, I hope you are not including personal nostalgia in your critizism. When I go back to the beautiful canyon where I learned to hike in the 50's. And I have to sneek past rows of hugh sudo-Tudor mcMansions to even find the trail head. Then pass piles of chip sacks and beer bottles to reach the trees, stripped, broken and scarred. I sometimes have a little bit of longing for the old days.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

MattP, I don't really think it has to do with guilt, nor do I think it ought to. It has to do with, to put it broadly, exhibiting sensitivity for others in the way we communicate. I think we agree to a large extant in our views on nostalgia, for what it's worth.

With regard to my example, I chose something hyperbolic to express my point. I think you could choose a marginally less famous, undeniably catastrophic event, and it would still hold true though. And so on, until you got to "Life in North America in the 1950's". I don't consider the 9/11 example perfect, but I do think it's fair. If it helps, I'd have a similar problem with someone condemning the '50s in an absolute fashion.

quote:
I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).

This too. Again, it pays to be careful in your language.

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :

There was a great movie that came out about six or seven years ago called "Songcatcher." The story concerned some mountain people in early twentieth century Appalachia. I like how the movie captured how close the charm and the beauty was connected to the vileness exhibited in the culture of the people. I don't know if one can separate the good from the bad. I think that some of the most beautiful gestures can flow from appalling prejudices.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I think nostalgia is generally useless, too, Jhai, but I also think yelling at people for doing something very human, very normal, and well-intentioned is a great deal worse.

Nostalgia is useless but ubiquitous and generally harmless. Freaking out about it and labeling people with terrible labels because they do it is an active evil.

[ March 06, 2009, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

Kat, I never labeled any person anything. Go back and reread what I said, as you obviously haven't closely enough.

I also did not "freak out". I reacted strongly because I felt it was warranted. And I disagree that nostalgia for past time periods is generally harmless. I think it's actually a very large problem because it is created from and then reinforces biases that do great harm in society.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

You did freak out. You strongly over-reacted to the original comment. That's what freaking out is.

I'd like to see you prove the actual harm nostalgia is. Not that it sometimes may possibly contribute to other harmful actions - you could say that about lots of things, including love, driving, and the ability to communicate.

It is a ubiquitous, universal, timeless human activity that the vast majority of time is done with benign intentions. In order to justify your freaking out, then you need to prove actual harm from the action itself. If you want to say that it is kind of like rascism, then your actual problem is with racism (you know they are not equivelent, right? Not even close?) and that doesn't count.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

*shrug* I'm not going to get into an argument with you about definitions. You can call it whatever you like, but you're wrong to call it freaking out.

Nostalgia (about past eras) causes us to close our eyes to the negatives of past eras. If you say "the 1950s, as a whole, were so great" then you're clearly ignoring the fact that, actually, the 1950s, as a whole, was not so great. Putting aside the fact that you're not being mentally rigorous (which I think is a large problem), by failing to acknowledge the problems of the past you're far more likely to repeat them.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
You can call it whatever you like, but you're wrong to call it freaking out.

I don't quite understand this sentence. Are you saying that Katie can use whatever words she wants, but that certain usages are empirically wrong?

In all honesty, Jhai, you've been unusually hostile and pedantic lately. I've noticed it, and so have a bunch of other people. Is something wrong?

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I'm saying that I didn't freak out. I should know, since I'm the one doing the action. She can call what I did freaking out, but I say she'd be wrong to do so. I'm not saying certain usages are "empirically wrong", but they are wrong. If a baby crawls across the carpet, you'd be wrong to say "the baby is running down the street." It's not "empirically" wrong to say that the baby is running, but it's nonetheless wrong.

And no, nothing is wrong in my personal life. If anything, life is particularly good with spring on the way & the backpacking season really starting. Might go out this weekend, even.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

*nod* I think what she's saying is that, from her perspective, your reaction was harsher and more hostile than it needed to be. I don't think Katie's distinguishing the symptoms of "freaking out" from the emotional sensation of "freaking out." So while I'm sure it's true that the latter did not occur, you also have to understand that from her perspective there is no obvious difference.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

But, again, I don't agree that the symptoms she lists as "freaking out" (i.e. "You strongly over-reacted to the original comment.")actually occurred. I would say I reacted more than I could have, but it was not an "over-reaction". For instance, when someone steps down hard on your foot by accident, you can say "Dear Sir, would you kindly remove your foot from the top of mine? I feel a little pain." or you can say "Owww! That really hurt!". The first is less of a reaction the second, but the second is not an "over-reaction".

Obviously, kat and I disagree about whether what I said was an overreaction. That's fine, but I believe she's wrong. I'm not going to argue about it, since that's a conversation that will go no where fast, but neither am I going to say something like "agree to disagree" just to smooth things over socially or whatever. Just like I don't tell Christains "agree to disagree" when they talk about the existence of their god. I say, "you're wrong." (Obviously, I don't just go around telling any Christian I meet on the street that they're wrong - it only occurs in the context of a discussion relating to religion.)

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
neither am I going to say something like "agree to disagree" just to smooth things over socially or whatever

You might want to reconsider that. Seriously.
Because here's the thing: kat's going to disagree with you whether you give her permission to or not. If you choose not to "agree to disagree" on it, you have two choices: you can either successfully convince her that she's wrong, or you can flatly contradict her. I don't see what good flatly contradicting her does you, and it certainly costs you some goodwill.

In the same way, I wouldn't recommend telling every Christian with whom you're having a theological discussion that they're wrong about their God. There's certainly a place for that kind of frankness, but I think you'll find that an approach like this one comes at a cost which often outweighs any benefit.

Note that even saying "let's just agree to disagree" is offensive for much the same reason that saying "I won't allow you to agree to disagree with me" is offensive, albeit slightly less so. In both cases, you are claiming for yourself an authority that you are not extending to the other person. In reality, Katie is perfectly entitled to consider your reaction to be an overreaction; you, for your part, are perfectly entitled to appraise it differently, and even to try to convince her otherwise. But you do not have the right to tell Katie she is not permitted to perceive your behavior the way she does.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I'm not telling her that she's not permitted to do anything, Tom. I'm just not going to say I think she's right when I don't think so. She's free to disagree with me, and I will "flat out contradict her". If she thinks that arguing about it will result in anything other than arguing, I would be willing to consider continuing to argue about it, but I doubt either one of us thinks we're going to win the other over, so I'd be quite surprised if she says she wants to continue to discuss it. If it costs me her goodwill, or the goodwill of others, well, *shrug*. I doubt I have much of kat's goodwill, anyways, and I'm fine with that situation.

I screen people before I enter into theological discussions with them. I would not, for instance, enter into one with my boss.

I've not said either "let's just agree to disagree" or "I won't allow you to agree to disagree with me". The first I believe is inane, and the second is stupid, since I don't have the power to stop people's thoughts. I'm saying I won't "agree to disagree". I simply disagree.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
If it costs me her goodwill, or the goodwill of others, well, *shrug*.

I've tried this attitude. What I eventually realized was that I care a great deal about the goodwill of others.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

Well, it all depends on what you mean by "others", right? I care about the goodwill of my close friends and family, for instance. If I ever lost the goodwill of my dogs, I hope I'm still at least honest enough to deem myself a horrible person, because I sure as heck would be.

If I lose the goodwill of people who are upset because I dare to disagree with kat, and dare to state that I disagree with kat, I think I'll be okay.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I notice that you keep bringing up the religiosity of people with whom you disagree and habitually offend.

Is this something you are trying to do? Do you justify your poor behavior by thinking it is okay to be rude to religious people?

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I don't think it's rude to tell religious people of the Abrahamic faiths*** that they're wrong that a god exists. That's what all atheists/strong agnostics believe. If I'm in a discussion with someone about religion, I think it's reasonable to state what is probably my most fundamental assumption going into the discussion. Like I said, I don't bring it up to random people on the street who I believe to be Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim).

I haven't brought up the religiosity - or lack thereof - of anyone in this thread. All I've said is the following:

quote:
Just like I don't tell Christians "agree to disagree" when they talk about the existence of their god. I say, "you're wrong." (Obviously, I don't just go around telling any Christian I meet on the street that they're wrong - it only occurs in the context of a discussion relating to religion.)

as an example of being frank within another context. In the above quote I'm not discussing anyone on this thread, or really, anyone on Hatrack at all. When I wrote that, actually, I was thinking on a philosophy class I took in undergraduate which was basically on the existence of god, or lack thereof. We had a full range of people from atheists to "hardcore" Christians, and everyone got along peaceably enough, although I (and everyone else) was extremely frank about how I thought others were wrong or right within our discussions.

***I make the qualification of Abrahamic religions because I am less certain about the non-existence of gods which are not all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

You talked about your friends have "thicker skin", and then said the other difference is that your friends are not religious. That's twice you've brought up religion on your own when the discussion has been your behavior.

It certainly makes me wonder if your behavior is actually connected to your opinion of religion and if the bad behavior is justified in your head by disdain for the beliefs of the people you are habitually rude to.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

I said it to show that my IRL friends have a different demographic than Hatrack, by in large. They also skew more brown & yellow (am I anti-white folk now?), young (anti-older-people?), and international (anti-American?). Out of the 50-odd people at work & personal life whom I have regular contact with (i.e. weekly decently-long conversations with), all of two of them are white Americans.

I come to Hatrack in part because it has a greater diversity of people than I run into in my daily life. If I didn't want to talk to people different from me & my close friends, there are plenty of places I could go to hear an echo chamber.

Edit: and since the quote you're referring to didn't even happen in this thread, here it is for anyone wondering:

quote:
I do appreciate your remark, and as I've mentioned earlier, I will consider such remarks in the future. I already realized that I have a much, much thicker skin than the vast majority of people posting here, but the shocker is that apparently the vast majority of people I regularly associate with also have a much thicker skin than the denizens of Hatrack. I suppose the two populations aren't all that alike, though - for example, I can't think of one person I hang out with IRL who attends church.

I think, with the quote given in full, others can give your suppositions about me the exact amount of value they deserve.

Edit the second: oh, about five or six out of the people I closely associate with attend mosques regularly. And many attend Hindu temples for the major celebrations, including my husband and myself. So it's not like I don't hang out with religious folk IRL, either. I just don't know many Christians.

[ March 06, 2009, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

That you have friends who go to Hindu temples on holidays doesn't take away from your apparently associating comments on your bad behavior as connected to the probable Christianity of the people saying it.

Now that you've brought it up twice, I really wonder. It would explain a lot.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Jhai,

I believe the customary response to such a post would be something along the lines of, "You don't know me. You can't speculate on my motivations. I refuse to have this conversation with you."

Throw in a flounce in you can.

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That you have friends who go to Hindu temples on holidays doesn't take away from your apparently associating comments on your bad behavior as connected to the probable Christianity of the people saying it.

Now that you've brought it up twice, I really wonder. It would explain a lot.

No, I actually haven't brought up Christians twice. I once brought up "church goers" and once brought up believers in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity. While those groups may intersect, they are not identical to one another.

And I don't have friends who "go to Hindu temples on holidays"; I have friends who go to Hindu temples for major celebrations. Not the same thing.

Perhaps you should try to be a bit more careful when reading.

kmboots - sadly, my flouncing ability is a bit rusty. It's one of those things I find difficult to avoid laughing at when performed by anyone over the age of, oh, eight or so.