Neonatives in Montana

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sid Gustafson on February 1, 2011 at 6:51pm

Hi John,

As I see it Bozeman has become a culture of newer neonatives, following the earlier neonatives who came after the original natives--the American Indians--who are mostly all gone now, excepting a small gathering of tribes affiliated with the university. So, excepting the Indians, it seems most all Montanans are neonatives. Here in Gallatin and Park counties, the latest wave of neonatives are nearly all white folk, and the language remains English, unlike the neonatives in California who are delightfully dark-skinned and beautiful Spanish speakers. 

I must say the latest Montana neonatives embrace Bozeman and the Greater Yellowstone Region to a much greater degree than the earlier wave. The latest wave of neonatives are culturally involved with the region, they watch wolves and write letters to the editor and are on the library and community boards. They worry about bison and cattle and horses and dogs and wildlife. They vote.

In Bozeman they don't seem to be imposing their culture on us so much as submerging themselves into the outdoor recreation wilderness fantasy they came to enjoy. They bring us symphonies and operas and theatre and money, yes, but they ask questions and want answers and are eager to learn and fall into the Montana way. I just recently taught a class with the MSU Extended University, and the vast majority of students were recent neonatives anxious to know about the Evolution and Domestication of the Wolf, and how the wolf fits into our wilderness culture. The neonatives are sympathetic to ranchers. wolves, and even to the earlier waves of neonatives.

The new Manifest Destiny is more than welcome in this economy, as many of the 90s neonatives have packed up and returned to where they came from; cold, broke, unenlightened, gimpy, and disenchanted. Montana winters become harder to handle when funds run as low the temperature readings. The rivers are less crowded these days, but the quest for cold smoke remains at a premium. The best way to survive the Bridger winters is to get a season pass and ski your life into the lengthening days.

Although I was born in Montana, as were my parents and children, I remain an enthusiastic neonative, having to leave from time to time to harvest money in the otherworld to keep the writer's block at bay. There is no place like my Montana home, as I have looked long and far hoping for something better, warmer, and easier. Nowhere but Montana are there so many stories to tell and hear and read, rivers to float, horses to ride, cattle to gather, mountains to ski, and real Native Americans to learn from.

The truth about any place is always in the storytelling, and for me all the storytelling in the world remains right here in my own Montana!

Best wishes, Sid

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 2, 2011 at 9:50am

Sid, thanks for kicking off the discussion! You raise several interesting points that I’d love to hear others respond to.

 

For example, as Sid rightly points out, Native Americans are the only true Montana natives. But there are also white folks who take pride in being born here, and who (some of them, sometimes) take umbrage at the cultural changes brought by the newer newcomers. Obviously the changes are not as significant as those that were faced by the 19^th Century Blackfeet, Crow, and other tribes. But how significant are they, and where should our sympathies lie?

 

Sid suggests that the newest wave of neonatives, in contrast to previous waves, is eager to learn and embrace. Do others agree? Why are today’s newcomers different?

 

Sid mentions that many of the 1990s neonatives have left the Bozeman/Livingston areas. Is that true elsewhere? Does anyone know of any data on this? The only study I’ve heard of was done by Patrick Jobes, who found that 80 percent of new migrants to the Gallatin Valley left within five years -- but Jobes’ study was back in the late ‘80s. Wasn’t the Internet supposed to change everything?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Neal on February 2, 2011 at 11:29am

Great topic, John.  I'll come back to this discussion, but for now I'm just dropping off two studies about Montana's population trends that people might find interesting (attached below).

A few tidbits:

From 1980 to 2006, Montana experienced a population growth of only 20.1 percent -- much lower than most other western states (where the overall growth rate for the region was 60.5 percent over the same time period).  The rate of population growth was highest in the early 90s, but has tapered off significantly since then.

 That said, Gallatin County did get slammed.  Its population grew from 42,865 in 1980 to 80,921 in 2006, an increase of 88.8 percent!  (As a point of comparison, Missoula County's population increased only 33.4 percent in that same period.) 

Attachments:

• Montana_Population_Trends_1.pdf, 544 KB
• Montana_Population_Trends_2.pdf, 1.3 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 15, 2011 at 11:26am

Thanks Jason! I'll look forward to perusing the attachments. I'm particularly struck by what seems a paradox: you say Montana's population growth slowed in the late '90s and '00s -- as the Internet provided more tools to help people make a living remotely. Weren't those tools, combined with early-retiring Baby Boomers, supposed to boost our population? Why didn't they?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Rowland on February 2, 2011 at 10:34am

This is a great topic, John, and one that I can address personally after moving back to Billings, where I grew up, after being gone for twenty years. I do think a part of me really wanted to recreate the place that Billings used to be when I first got here, but it didn't take long to realize that Billings has changed a lot in twenty years. Thankfully, so have I, so that the things I focus on as positives are much different than they were when I left. I do think that the majority of people who move here are looking to embrace Billings as a community. This might be a broad generalization, but I think Montana cities as a rule attract people who are family and community oriented. For me, the most interesting thing about returning to Montana has been comparing it to the other twelve states I lived in since I left, and finding a lot to like, mostly about how well I fit here. I loved some of the other places I lived, especially San Francisco and Boston, but in my mind, I never really left Montana. I think a part of me knew that I would eventually come back here. And I hope that the perspective that living in those other places provided gives me a good chance to appreciate what this place means to me, and how I can contribute to its growth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chérie Newman on February 2, 2011 at 12:32pm

Great discussion you've got going here, John. I only have a few minutes, but want to chime in with a couple of points. I agree with Sid that many people get politically, socially, and culturally involved, with the aim of protecting their new home ground. They are keen to prevent the deterioration that drove them from their previous home. But also, many people acquire Montana property as a symbol of their success. As the former member of a very popular Bozeman-based band that played primarily weddings and special events, it would take me several days to list and describe the *outrageous* homes we played in (or outside of on half-acre flagstone patios and decks). You would not believe the ginormous homes (mostly vacation/get-away places) that are sitting in our canyons and foothills, forests, and even on our mountain tops.

 

I've also noticed that many people who move to Montana immediately become the most rabid and vocal opponents to "outsiders"! Like a woman I once heard ranting about the house being built in her new sub-division that partially blocked her view of the Spanish Peaks. When I commented that her neighbors probably had the same thought about construction of her house, she looked at me like I was a lunatic.

 

Anyway ... gotta jet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Ralph on February 4, 2011 at 12:24pm

Great discussion.  Thanks for moderating, John!

 

Many good points have been raised already.  Sid's acknowledgement that we are mostly all neonatives is an important point.  How long do you and your ancestors have to live in one place in order to be considered "natives?"  Change is the order of life - individuals and groups of individuals alike are always changing - must change.  Do you really want to live in a community with the same people and their descendants and only with those people?

That said, whenever you move someplace else, you should take the time and effort to learn about that place and community.  I have lived in many places:  after I left home for college, I didn't live longer than four years in any one place until moving to Montana, where I have been for the last 15 years (the last, best place for me!)  My past experiences led me to treat moving to Montana as if I were moving to another culture (which I was, in fact.)  That attitude served us well in becoming part of the community.

 

As a generalization, neonatives want to keep what they think is best in a community and add what they think they will make that place better.  A natural enough tendency, but it can cause friction.  Change is always uncomfortable.  And what happens when the community doesn't want that particular change? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 15, 2011 at 11:34am

Kathleen, what was different about your relationship to Montana? Was it qualities of the place, the community, or you? When you lived elsewhere, did you watch other people form these richer place-relationships there, and you simply had to find your own place? Or was it something unique to Montana? (I'd love for others to comment as well!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 15, 2011 at 11:31am

Cherie, I think you've hit on a classic neonative dilemma: Is it possible to "prevent the deterioration" of a place? Or do our habits and desires -- for large houses, microbrews. espressos, and suburban lifestyles -- make it inevitable that we will transform a place just like we did the last place?

 

I don't know the answer to this question -- I can argue it both ways -- but I'd love to hear others weigh in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Anderson on February 6, 2011 at 9:11pm

Great discussion. Russell brings up an interesting point--what do we call him and me and many of my friends--people who were raised here ("here" in my case being Missoula), move away for 15 or 20 years and then returned? Renatives? I moved to New York City for 15 years and loved it. But when my children were born I just couldn't imagine raising them anywhere but Missoula. And so, a return, one that many of my friends made as well. It seems that, within this crowd, we're simultaneously nostalgic about the town we left all those years ago, extremely protective of what still makes our community special, and impatient about the things that don't measure up to some of our more urban pleasures (restaurants come to mind....) In Missoula, at least, I do think the population of adults who went away for education and early careers are extremely active in community affairs once they return. Does that ring true elsewhere?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Stolz on February 7, 2011 at 7:09pm

In the winter of '73/'74, I was trying to piece together a living in Vermont (longer story).  I started working at Killington as a ski instructor, but with the "first" oil crisis (surely someone had one earlier?) and no snow, that job was going nowhere (but I did learn to tune my skis better).  So I cleaned condominiums with my soon-to-be-wife in the mornings and cleaned a bar (Rusty Nail - still the "happenin'" place) in the very late evenings/very early mornings (no one else wanted THAT job).

 

Eventually I ended up at a Backwoods Country Inn (50s)/Cross Country Ski Resort (60's/70's/ B&B (80s/90s) - Blueberry Hill Inn (still a WONDERFUL spot).  The owner, Tony Clark, was an officer of the Vermont Ski Touring Owner's Association (correct name?) and they were locked in a pitched battle with the owners/stock holders of the downhill ski areas over repeal or serious gutting of Act 250, Vermont's very progressive 1969 land use planning legislation.  Talking with Tony about my "vast" experience with the Idaho Legislature on environmental matters (wine greatly aided my resume) and having recently shorn my locks, I was hired as their lobbyist.

 

But let me briefly set the stage. I was living in a 223 year old home (a rental) that was still identified by the name of its second owners of the 1700s.  And many families on our road, second and third generation owners mind you, were still called the "new folks up the road" (I am NOT making this up).  So I obviously needed an angle to just not immediately be dismissed as some young whippersnapper with bell bottoms from Idaho.  Of course (no Google) I had to drive to Montpelier to sit and read about the Vermont Legislature (how primitive huh?).  It took me a couple of days of commuting and reading for the obvious to leap out at me (must have been Tony's wine still slowing me down): over ONE HALF of the Legislature had lived in the state for LESS THAN 25 YEARS.

 

After that, my lobbying was piece of cake.  Clearly more than half the legislature "had theirs" and didn't want to share it with seas of new condos with poorly planned roads and failing drain fields at the base of mega ski resorts, with attendant traffic jams of big  city folks on Friday and Sunday nights.  And who better than I to talk (insert tone of dripping sarcasm here) about the fine, good-paying jobs associated with big destination tourism versus the locally-grown, right-sized varian (which didn't pay any better, but was ions better qualitatively).  We were even locavores and didn’t know it.  Killington sure didn’t serve blueberries picked in Vermont.

 

So yes - newer neonatives frequently get involved, often on the side of keeping even newer neonatives out, or at least keeping their impact well-regulated.  Although I might observe a new wrinkle (gratis the housing crash): wanting to assure the ability to sell their dream for more than they paid for it.  And some entrepreneurs who move for the lifestyle, but also need employees, seem split on whether their employees should just be cheap or should be well-educated and paid enough to enjoy the same lifestyle.

 

And then I could contrast that Vermont winter with my experience as another newer neonative resort owner for three years in the three-tier stratified society of Seeley Lake, but that's another story ......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 15, 2011 at 11:40am

Ken, this is an important perspective. We've been talking a lot about community and involvement as if they're inherently positive. But sometimes these impulses, like all in life, are about money and power. In the 1800s East Coast, Irish immigrants flocked to police and firefighting jobs because they were the easiest route to money and power for a somewhat disenfranchised group. Do neonatives flock to public service for similar reasons?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page