You Know You Live in a Small(ish) Town When...

[ChiTownScion]

Suburbanization is beginning to reverse, but the unfortunate aspect of it is that it brings gentrification to the cities, as old working-class neighborhoods are colonized by "upscale" types looking for the "authentic experience" and their longtime occupants are driven off. Eventually the yupsters will all live in the city, and the rest of us will have to be satisified with the abandoned and deteriorating remains of suburbia. Unless, of course, we figure out how to build tumbrels.

Doing the urban pioneer thing when we were married a year (1986) was a lot of fun. Bought a large Victorian that had been previously owned by a cop with eight kids, and he had re- muddled it ubiquitously with a really cheap grade wood paneling. We weren't there 48 hours before my wife was ripping off paneling, steaming off layers of old wallpaper, and trying to get at those old plaster walls. I learned the meaning of "sweat equity" and gave up many weekends to do the unskilled aspects, and then we called in the pros. Rediscovering leaded and stained glass, and even a long covered fireplace.. it was all great fun. We'd have never moved to the 'burbs had it not been for the need for decent schools for a special needs son. Had we stayed put, the mortgage would have been burned a long time ago, and my understanding is that the value of the place now is in the seven figures.

A lot of the neighborhood was "working class" people: cops, fire fighters, building tradesmen. But there were a number of yuppie types as well, and no denying we placed in the latter. My guess is that things are pretty much the same now in that regard.

For us it wasn't so much about an "authentic experience" as an affordable place to live and proximity to our jobs. I didn't see people "driven off" so much as "trading up," selling homes for 4-5 times what they'd paid for them and cashing in on that equity for another property. Again: this was 31 years ago and the 80's days of mega- return on real estate are history- but I'd imagine that unaffordable property taxes are about the only thing that could actually drive anyone off.

 

[BlueTrain]

The small town I'm referring to was the one I lived in from the time I was born until we moved away (all of about 35 miles away) at the end of 1963. That was only 17 years. There are other small towns like all over the country and I think most of them have suffered the same decline and suffered is the most appropriate word. My hometown may or may not have been as wonderful as I remember it. It is unlikely that have been perfect weather all the time and in fact in the houses were we lived, we were much more aware of the temperature outside than where I live now. But I wonder what the older residents who lived there thought about the town in the 1950s, compared with previous decades. My grandmother was almost 70 when I was born and had lived there about 25 or 30 years, having moved here from not very far away. So her generation would also have seen a lot of changes over the years, too. But I don't remember anyone ever talking about the past the way we do.

There's another kind of small town, too, of the sort that Miss Lizzie speaks of now and then. They were at one time very ordinary places where people had very ordinary jobs in small factories and shops and were the local trading centers for the farmers, miners, fishermen or loggers from the area. My impression was that they were lively centers of economic activity, but of a fairly small scale. Those who lived there didn't see it that way, of course. To them, it was the world. It was everything. But small has disappeared from the economy. I'm guessing but I'd say the changes really began after WWI and really took off after WWII.

The other kind of small town is near the city, within commuting distance. It hardly works out the same everywhere but a degree of gentrification occurs. The hardware stores, the little restaurants, the little department stores and the little supermarkets eventually disappear to be replaced by art galleries, real estate offices, law offices, stock brokers and trendy restaurants. Ordinary people do their shopping at the new strip mall just outside of town somewhere, which is virtually identical to the one outside the next small town up the road twenty miles away. Nobody cares because all the stores are better than the old stores and there's more parking and it's free, too. No more feeding the parking meter. I'm not sure that a town like that suffers but the real estate values go way up and it's not what it used to be, if it ever way.

To be fair, some small towns were quite gentrified a hundred years ago. Sometimes all that local economic activity produced some wealthy people and the built nice houses. There was usually a fancy Episcopal Church in town, built in the middle of the neighborhood were all the swells lived. They took the train into the big city to do their department store shopping. They had servants. They were the first to have a car. And lots of people today have a lot of money because of some ancestor did well in a small town a hundred years ago. And that includes my wife.

 

[MisterCairo]

I'd forgotten the deaf-mutes who handed out cards, sometimes with some gimcrack item attached, like a paper flower. The last one I remember was at a truckstop in Oklahoma maybe 20-25 years ago.

We have those folks to this day. I see them at my favourite coffee house at least twice a year.

 

[sheeplady]

Sometimes all that local economic activity produced some wealthy people and the built nice houses. There was usually a fancy Episcopal Church in town, built in the middle of the neighborhood were all the swells lived. They took the train into the big city to do their department store shopping. They had servants. They were the first to have a car. And lots of people today have a lot of money because of some ancestor did well in a small town a hundred years ago. And that includes my wife.

My MIL's family was quite wealthy up until the Great Depression, as they owned all the stores in a small town in PA. Then they lost it all... except a mild attitude of thinking they deserved better. For instance, they tended to judge their current circumstances and status against the very high bar of being relatively wealthy and against those who had status, and consequently found their own lives lacking. I doubt they could ever verbalize this, but there was a certain tone in their voice when undergoing such a comparison that you could see that they simply thought they deserved better than they had... simply because of who they are, they had roots in the revolution, etc.

My inlaws could have, in numerous scenarios, bettered themselves financially (and made numerous silly decisions that have threatened their ability to have a stable retirement).

But basically, part of what this drove home for me is how important the personal narrative you tell your children is. My MIL was raised with the message: "we had it all and lost it, you'll never have as much" and that proved to be somewhat foreshadowing.

 

[BlueTrain]

There are all kinds of stories like that, I expect. But national history, local circumstances and all sorts of other things enters into family stories. In Virginia, the shadow of the Civil War hangs over everything and it is as if that's the last time everything was turned upside down and nothing since then has made much of any difference. My wife is also related to both the Washington family and the Mason (as in George) family. They are all very proud of the fact, although they likewise all realize that it was pure chance of birth that they're part of it. Believe it or not, I was scarcely aware of all the family connections when I married into the family. After that, I started learning about ancestor worship.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Most of the towns around here enjoyed their real burst of prosperity in the 19th century -- where I live now was the center of the New England lime industry, where I grew up was a major center for shipbuilding in the days of sail. But in both cases those industries were either dying or dead by the turn of the 20th, and it was downhill all the way from there on. WWII meant brief bursts of prosperity in both towns, and the momentum from that carried into the postwar era -- there were a lot of men who came home from the war and got VA loans to buy fishing boats or chicken farms -- but by the 1970s, that little prosperity echo was over, and there was nothing left but decay, deterioration, and gentrification.

There were a few families still around when I was a kid who were connected to the shipbuilding dynasties of the 19th century, but in all cases they were living under greatly reduced circumstances, with only their names engraved on graveyard mausoleums as evidence that they used to be Somebody. Those families have all died out at this point, and the only "Old Money" left in the area is represented by the descendants of Northeastern aristocrats who began summering here in the 1910s -- we have such as Rockefellers, Morrows, Curtises, Boks, etc. still lurking in the area, and they tend to keep a very low profile except at fundraising galas. Otherwise they stay in their hidden coastal or island enclaves and have little to do with the locals, except perhaps for trusted favorites who maintain their boats or trim their hedges.

There's very little of that flouncy Mayflower/DAR stuff around here, even though many working-class locals are in fact descendend from colonial/Revolutionary Era families. I have roots in New England going back to the seventeenth century, but it has never done me in any way the slightest bit of good, other than giving me the opportunity to say one of my great-X grandmothers was hung as a witch.

There's also surprisingly little interest in the Civil War, other than most towns having identical poured-concrete statues of a generic Union soldier on display somewhere around the place, along with the occasional decomissioned cannon -- which is often used as a public trash container by passers by. Growing up I always knew I could find deposit bottles stuffed down the bore of the Municipal Gun.

 

[Fading Fast]

...But basically, part of what this drove home for me is how important the personal narrative you tell your children is. My MIL was raised with the message: "we had it all and lost it, you'll never have as much" and that proved to be somewhat foreshadowing.

One of the reasons I don't have the sort of accepted passively negative view of "rich" kids is because of your last statement - it is not easy, IMHO, being a rich kid.

Just for clarity for those who don't know, I was raised in a "Wonder Years" (the TV show) type of world - we had food, shelter, clothing, not a lot more and worried about money all the time (mainly because my parents had grown up poor in the Depression and would go to their graves worrying about money). My dad had barely made it out of high school (so he says, we never found a diploma or other evidence) and our house narrative was work, work hard, don't complain (at work, at school, at home, in your sleep, ever), save, spend little and always worry.

Good and bad came out of that - as you can imagine. But the "rich" kids I have known have their own share of issues. Some parents are pressuring them in the womb to get on a path so that they too can be rich. You can hate the parents for this, but the pressure on the it's-not-their-fault kids is intense. And even if they aren't pressured, the American expectation (breaking down now) of doing better than your parents sets the bar very high for them.

Also, things like being humble came easy to me - our lifestyle was humble and it's what I was taught - a lot of rich kids don't have that advantage. If they are spoiled - everything handed to them - is it their fault they don't understand the value of things like hard work? Ultimately, born rich, poor or in-between, you are responsible for your adult self, but all three options have challenges that can be, as you note, exaggerated by the prevailing narrative you grow up with.

And finally, since you can't choose to whom you are born, I don't hold the default negative view of "rich" kids - it ain't their fault their parents had money.

You are so right about the "personal narrative" as not a day in my life goes by when I don't worry about a Depression coming back (despite being born in '64 - it was so apart of my upbringing that it felt and feels alive to me). It's a wear-you-down way to go through life, but I can't change that.

 

[BlueTrain]

My own experience has been that morality and common decency are not confined to any particular social or income class. But I sometimes wonder if there is a bell-shaped curve in which those quality diminish at either end. I have serious doubts about how honest and moral the super rich really are. There are those who believe they are above the law and any moral constraints.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The reality of the class system is that structural, systemic class oppression has nothing to do with the individual morality, actions, or beliefs of members of any class. Americans, steeped in the religion of individualism, too often miss this point.

 

[BlueTrain]

It is also difficult to rise above the contemporary political and social morality as is demonstrated by the fact that many of the freedom-loving founding fathers happened to own slaves. But on the other hand, their object was hardly to free the slaves but rather to create a united country independent of Great Britain, which they mostly achieved. They were certainly aware of the problem of slavery. They hoped the problem would go away.

 

[Trenchfriend]

When years ago, a cheap clothing-store (cheaper than low-end, let's call it "C-class stuff") opened in smalltowns center at the bus-station, as smalltowns only "modern fashion"-chainstore.

And you knew, that in the very near future, all working-class of the 4.500 people-smalltown gets uniformed and the praktical red-white XXL-bags become a daily utensil and the "distinctive feature" for the milieu, too.

Special: The neon-red and neon-lemon sneakers and gymshoes from age 15 upwards to 55.

Let us hope, that the main market-saturation kill these stores.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It is also difficult to rise above the contemporary political and social morality as is demonstrated by the fact that many of the freedom-loving founding fathers happened to own slaves. But on the other hand, their object was hardly to free the slaves but rather to create a united country independent of Great Britain, which they mostly achieved. They were certainly aware of the problem of slavery. They hoped the problem would go away.

Indeed. That's sort of like hoping a leaky roof will just "go away."

 

[Fading Fast]

The reality of the class system is that structural, systemic class oppression has nothing to do with the individual morality, actions, or beliefs of members of any class. Americans, steeped in the religion of individualism, too often miss this point.

I believe one of America's great strengths has been its respect for individualism. Despite their many flaws (especially judged against today's standards, not theirs), the Founding Fathers saw the individual as the entity they wanted to protect when they structured the Constitution (and the gov't as an institution responsible for protecting that individual and, also, it's greatest threat - which is why they tried to place so many limits on the gov't). The respect for individualism is, IMHO, the point of the famous opening to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. That they were horribly wrong on slavery does not negate the value, contribution and, so far, longevity of their ideas and ideals.

 

[LizzieMaine]

On the other hand, there's the ultimate nightmare of American individualism: a four-way stop sign.

 

[Fading Fast]

On the other hand, there's the ultimate nightmare of American individualism: a four-way stop sign.

There is a small but not zero chance of that resulting in a complete freeze - it's always bothered me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You know you're living in a small town when four way stops are a part of your regular experience, and you wish they'd smarten up and put in a blinker.

 

[BlueTrain]

My own opinion is that, these days, a four-way stop sign works just about as well as a traffic light, what with the right-turn-on-red rule, provided the traffic isn't too heavy.

I think that many of the founding father's ideals were myths even when the constitution and the declaration of independence were written. Obviously the ideal of the yeoman farmer that Jefferson championed was laughable in the southern states with the large plantations that were only workable when there were slaves. It should likewise not be imagined that the revolution was in fact a revolution. It was instead a colonial war for independence, which is not a bad thing. It was also not supported by everyone and those who were loyalists (as opposed to "patriots") had a hard time after the war was over and some left and went somewhere else.

All of that business about limiting the power of government was more about limiting the power of the federal government versus the state governments, which were already going concerns when the war started, being run by men who generally continued to run the states after the war. In other words, the individuality of the states was easily just as important as the individuality of the citizen at the time. One of their ideals, that the states could voluntarily contribute enough to make the national government workable also fell apart right away, which resulted in the constitutional convention. Evidently, power sharing has always been a problem in any federal system of government.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's as I've always said -- the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter depends on which side of the gun you're on.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Why that complicated?? Why not just "priority-to-the-right"?

 

[Fading Fast]

It's as I've always said -- the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter depends on which side of the gun you're on.

Yes, at that moment and to those individuals, but I don't believe it's always relative. I don't think Nazi Germany and England were just which side of the gun you were on. Nor do I think, in '56, a Hungarian resistance fighter and a Soviet occupier were the same. To each of them, at that moment, yes, maybe, but there is a bigger picture and maybe right and wrong is too strong (as there's always, "England was a colonizer," "Austro-Hungarian Empire did..."), but no country's hands are perfectly clean, but I'm still glad England and Hungry did what they did above in the sweep of history.