At 05:30 PM 12/4/2000 -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote:
>"Michael M. Butler" wrote:
> > Quite possibly. Could it also be that the Montanan and Hampshirite share
> > more common values, or think they do? Sure. I know what you are driving
> > at, but note that you said "easier". Not "a slam dunk".
>
>Frankly most people I know don't know jack about cattle ranching or
>mining. Pretty different cultures. I've also found that rural people
>will tend to trust a 'city slicker' if they don't fit in previously
>formed categories that equal 'con artist', while few city people would
>distrust a rural person at all, though they may have prejudices about
>them being quaint, simple, etc..
I have to agree with Michael on this part at least. Most rural people will
generally give city people the benefit of the doubt if you don't already
fall into some category that has a well-deserved reputation for being "no
good". Odd or unusual people are usually viewed as a curiosities and are
generally dealt with in a friendly manner. By comparison, city people have
a tendency to be condescending to rural people, or people they think fall
into the rural redneck genre (which has happened to me, when I am in Nevada
Native mode). Having a "suburban superiority complex" will win you no
friends in the back country. As each culture has its own social protocols,
I don't think comparing city-to-city or rural-to-rural interactions to be
particularly relevant.
Consider the Burning Man festival. It is held deep in Basque rancher
country, out in the Black Rock desert. The people who live in the area
generally have no problems with the festival. Interestingly enough, most
of the objections to the festival come from California environmentalists
who have never even been to the place. (It is an interesting anomaly that
most environmentalists tend to be true city people i.e. people who have
virtually no real experience with wilderness.)
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT