Neonatives in Montana

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason Neal on February 15, 2011 at 8:42am

I think neonatives are probably more open to cultural and societal changes than their "native" counterparts--and that's a good thing.  I do hear a fair amount of wistful pining for Montana's "good ol' days" in my neck of the woods (and not just from the born-and-raised, but even more so from the people who moved here 20-30 years ago and have, to hear them talk, witnessed a steady deterioration of all that is right and good since the day they arrived).  I tend to think the whole concept is a bunch of malarkey; people project their own personal "good 'ol days" (and who doesn't look back with longing on his or her younger self?) onto history, but close inspection usually reveals a pretty selective memory of the past.

Point is, places change, whether or not neonatives are in the mix.  Industries grow and falter.  People move in, maybe from the next town over or maybe all the way from California (the nerve!).  People also move out, or die.  Generations are born and grow up with different exposures to the world, different perceptions of right and wrong, normal and abnormal.  Some of the changes we like, some we don't, depending on our point of view.  But the culture, I would say, is always in flux.  And the neonatives might be less intimidated by that inevitable change—and more willing to jump in and constructively shape it—than their counterparts.  I don't deny that people develop deep, incomparable and in some ways enviable relationships to places when they live in them their whole lives...but there's also something quite freeing and forward-looking and enthusiastic, I guess, about picking a new place to call home.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 15, 2011 at 11:23am

Thanks everyone for the great responses, and sorry illness has kept me away from the discussion.

I'd like expand a bit on the definition of "neonative." Hal Rothman invented this word because it was something different than a "newcomer." A newcomer can arrive in a place, perhaps build a house, stay or leave. But a neonative comes to define herself through her relationship to the new community. Thus I'm particularly intrigued by Russell's and Sid's comments that lots of Montana newcomers seem particularly invested in their communities. Could it be that we're seeing more "neonatives" now than mere newcomers? Conversely, when Kim says she enjoyed New York but wasn't going to invest her children in the place, I suspect that means Kim was a New York newcomer rather than a neonative. Do you suppose Montana has a higher proportion of neonatives among their newcomers than do other places?

 

For Rothman the ultimate example of the neonative was the dude rancher. To his eastern friends, what defined the dude rancher was his apparent Western-ness: for example, his knowledge of fishing, wildlife, and outdoor living. Yet to his neighbors, what defined the dude rancher was his Eastern-ness: his access to capital and a stream of dudes that could help him make a living more easily than they could (even though their Western-living skills were probably better). Do we have equivalents today of dude ranchers?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Badenoch on February 15, 2011 at 4:00pm

Whenever I encounter so-called neonatives, I always wonder why it is they came to Missoula.  Make no mistake, I understand how attractive Montana communities are, and I appreciate that neonatives inoculate the local culture from becoming too hidebound.  Still, I wonder about the places they come from.  What unlivable hell-holes are they that a person or a family can't grow up in safety, or live with a feeling of community and an honest sense of belonging?

My perspective comes from over twenty years of redeveloping Missoula's Downtown.  My career here began with the firm belief that no city worth the name can afford to throw away a part of itself.  We have to take care of our history, our culture, our kids, our institutions, our politics.  Failing to do that leaves us with cities that are places to flee from. If that isn't a pathological description of America's treatment of its cities I don't know what is.  I find, as someone who did the extremely rewarding work of historic preservation, creation of joyful public spaces, restoring the community's visual and physical access to the Clark Fork River and creating job opportunities, I have helped create the place to which people are glad to flee.

How long can we keep this pattern going?  I think about the small towns--many of them in Montana--that are drying up and losing population even though there is serviceable infrastructure and building stock.  I think about low-income people or retired people who lack decent housing or communities in which to live, and I wonder if there isn't something more we should do about throwing away our communities through deserting them.  After all, at some point in history, a bunch of people stopped roaming and said, "this is the place." Was it a crossroads where a store might thrive? A fertile valley? A body of water or a river that settled them?  The reason is still there, I reckon, but it has been lost through neglect or abuse--thrown away.

It would be rude to ask neonatives what kind of caretakers they were in the place they come from, I suppose. And we have enough good reasons to live here (Two, not just one, Wal-mart--we wouldn't have that without neonatives!) that we can welcome them. But taking care of home should not be a heroic undertaking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Simon on February 16, 2011 at 11:35am

Hmm Geoff,

 

While I agree with and applaud your efforts to restore towns to make them more  livable, I disagree with your premise that people move here in order to throw away the hell-holes they came from.  If that were true--that the reason people leave is because their home towns are unbearable--no one would ever leave Missoula right?

 

I think there are a lot of reasons people leave their hometowns in this country; it was joining the military that first took me from mine, college that prolonged my exile, and marriage that kept me from going back.  Aren't those valid and common reasons for young people leaving?  My hometown is smaller than Missoula, with pure water, good jobs, safe children, and is an interesting place.  It has even had the nerve to become more interesting and prosperous after I left it.  It is not the city you describe, nor the hell hole, and I miss it.  But for a mix of reasons, events, and chance that have nothing to do with its faults, I'm here now and contributing to this community.

 

And I don't think my profile or reasons are exceptional. 

 

lisa

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Badenoch on February 16, 2011 at 2:28pm

And, of course, you are right, Lisa. 

 

No doubt my brush painted over broad. My observation should have been limited to those who have, by their own experiences, left unbearable living situations in communities that have deteriorated.  My response to the prompt was based on hearing so many people say how much better Missoula is than the city or state they left. Missoula in the '70's had a lot of horrible things wrong with it and it was the commitment by our political and civic leaders to heal the community that made it what it is today.Some of these neonatives made the choice not to commit themselves to the notion of community that evokes taking responsibility for a place.

 

I wonder why it is we are allowing the deterioration of so many communities people feel compelled to flee instead of staying to do the work of restoring them to the attractive places they once were?  It is that act of fleeing that I equate with "throwing away." I find it wasteful and disheartening that our highly mobile society with its spirit of re-inventing oneself has this profligate side to it.Obviously it is easier for those with the means to leave deteriorating places and dedicate themselves to making a good place better, than staying and making a bad place good. I understand that. It seems to be in many people's DNA.

 

It would be unfair to place that on every person who found themselves a neonative, though, as you noted about your own experience.  . 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 18, 2011 at 6:45pm

I'm so happy to be moderating a discussion on a site like this -- because it is so self-moderating! Thanks Geoff and Lisa for articulating your differences in such respectful and eloquent ways.

But let's make no mistake, they are differences, and I think Geoff brings an important perspective to this discussion. As I hear it, Geoff is arguing that these qualities we've been lauding, such as community involvement, reside chiefly in a person's character. If you're the type of person who gets involved (and you're not waylaid by the other factors Lisa mentions), don't you have moral responsibility to do so in your community of origin?

And if you disagree, the question is: Where then do those qualities lie? Shouldn't we be able to articulate and even measure them, so that dying communities (from, say, Detroit to, say, North Dakota) could replicate them?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Ralph on February 18, 2011 at 11:12pm

Geoff's comments certainly were provocative!  If everyone stayed in their community of origin, there would be no whites on this continent.  Which of Geoff's ancestors first came to Missoula and why?  People move for all sorts of reasons, mostly economic and job-related and for greater freedom to live as they wish.  And it's not just Missoula that's growing:  cities all over the world are growing rapidly. 

I strongly disagree with the idea that we have a moral responsibility to get involved and preserve/improve our community of origin.  In fact, I have such a strong, visceral reaction to the idea I have been trying to figure out why (I haven't yet, but I'm still working on it!)  Rather, I believe we should do so wherever we are living. 

What we are experiencing is not new. Change is always occurring, people (both natives and neonatives) have much to contribute if they choose to do so.  Even as we speak, people are working to regain community in places like Detroit - and they have been for decades (does anyone else remember the Detroit Geographical Expedition in the early 70's?) 

The question I now have is:  is Montana somehow different from other places in the reaction of neonatives?

From my personal experience, I think Montana as a place engages people more directly than other places because of the dreams it represents and because its physicality is so dominant.  People get involved in the outdoors, with horses, and, yes, with other people who have the same interests.  And size (or lack of size) matters:  you feel you can make a difference and aren't lost in the crowd.

 .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craig Lancaster on February 18, 2011 at 10:51pm

If you're the type of person who gets involved (and you're not waylaid by the other factors Lisa mentions), don't you have moral responsibility to do so in your community of origin?

 

But isn't good citizenship doing so wherever you live, for whatever reason you live there? We're a country of migrants and immigrants. "Home is where you hang your hat" and all of that.

 

I have no desire to live in my hometown, a large suburb of Fort Worth, Texas. While I very much enjoyed my childhood there -- it was idyllic in many ways -- I knew from an early age that I wanted to live in that magical place called Somewhere Else. What North Richland Hills has become in the 20 years I've been gone is not what I would have wished for it -- a thousand people a year have crowded in, and its fleeting grasp of its own history has disappeared under big-box stores and parking lots -- but the people who live there now seem to like it. That's on them. I'm interested in other horizons.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Badenoch on February 19, 2011 at 2:04am

Well, I was not clear in what I said.  First, my observation was not meant to suggest that everyone stay put and not leave their community of origin.  That, after all, is the impetus that propels most young people out into the world.  It is an inclination of self-discovery in young people I both recognize and celebrate.  Second, what I was trying to call attention to is the people who find themselves in some hateful hellhole that has deteriorated from its original founding value and importance that makes its more mature residents conclude they must flee rather than correct their community's hellhole-ness.If enough people arrive at the conclusion it is eaiser to flee than stick it out and fix what's wrong, the result is damaged communities.  Third, when they flee to places like Missoula, their addition to the community--in many but not all--cases diminishes what attracted them to Missoula in the first place. I know a lot of people who lived in Missoula before, say, 1990, resent those who arrived after that because they create more traffic and congestion, and create the threshold population that brings us the economic energy that creates places like North Reserve.  Personally, I am not absolutely positive Missoula is a better place for what happened to North Reserve.

 

I have always abhorred gated communities and unwelcoming attitudes. I welcome every neonative who arrives ready to contribute and make the community better.  That means, in my view,  being more than a simple consumer of what is great about the community.  Great places exist because people living there have loved them into being that way.  Anyone who feels they can come to a community like Missoula and consume its goodeness without making the contributions of time, energy, money and/or personal investment in making it better can keep on going, in my opinion. If you recognize what is good about your new-found community, or what is bad that can be corrected by your efforts, I warmly welcome you.

 

That said, the American landscape is being littered by communities whose citizens are so disheartened that they feel it is easier to simply abandon their cities and strike out for some less hellish place.  I think of Europe and the fact that cities there have existed for hundreds or, in some cases thousand of years.  Ravaged by both wars and time, their walls and buildings and public spaces keep getting rebuilt in new and vital ways.  What is valued for its historical value is rebuilt, as well.  Somebody lives there with that expectation. I sense that is not an expectation we, in America, feel about our cities in general.  It seems both sad and wasteful.

 

I know Lisa and her husband, and I know what they have added to the place I love.  If they felt anything but less than welcome here, I would feel I failed them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on February 19, 2011 at 10:02am

Geoff, I may have overstated your point (it's obviously my statement that Craig is smartly objecting to); I'm sorry. But I'm impressed by many of these responses.

 

First, thanks to Kathleen for arguing that the impulse lies in the relationship between person and place, and starting to articulate the differences in those relationships in Montana:

1. Small population

2. "Dominant physicality": outdoors, nature

3. "The dreams it represents": what some might call the mythology

Can we add to this list, or help flesh out these three elements in more detail?

 

Second, thanks to Craig for pointing out that many neonatives have fled apparently-successful communities. Is there something inherently American about this? One reason the "neonative" concept fascinates me is that Americans are known as a people who move a lot. Yet neonatives stop moving once they find their "true home." So maybe the truer picture of America is that we're a nation of wannabe-neonatives? (Please feel free to agree or disagree.)

 

Third, thanks to Geoff for continuing to engage us. You're obviously a kindhearted and generous person. I find you especially valuable in this discussion because you've come closest to stating what I have heard quite a bit over the last 20 years as well: that there are some changes we don't like (Reserve St., Bozeman traffic, gated communities, etc.), and one has to wonder if the neonative influx has accelerated them. The tradeoff may be worthwhile (and/or inevitable), but is there something we can do to mitigate the negative impacts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Anderson on February 19, 2011 at 10:53pm

I suppose I was a neo-neo-native in New York City for 15 years. Believe me, as a young adult I couldn't wait to leave what I then perceived as the insular homogenous world of Montana. It was only after I left Montana, and matured, and had children, that I began to value the country I left behind. And, as I noted in an earlier post, I thinks tons of Montana's children come back, finding a way to scrape a living here when they could earn much more somewhere else. And I think that we "returners" can form some sort of a bridge between new ideas and the traditions we hold so dear. At least I feel that responsibility. Geoff I think I understand exactly where you're coming from. My extended family lives in the small rural towns of eastern North Dakota. Not nearly as glamorous or as picturesque as Missoula. Many of those small farming towns were dying until they became bedroom communities for Fargo. Now there's the conflict of NeoNatives in small communities that would be dying if it weren't for them. They bring different values to towns like Lisbon and Milnor but they also support the local grocer. The historical locals were gladly going to Costco in Fargo because it was so much cheaper, even though losing the small town grocer would be the death knell of a small town.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Clayton on March 5, 2011 at 3:43pm

Although this discussion will stay up for quite some time, today marks the end of my time as its formal moderator. I’d like to thank Humanities Montana and its Web-discussion guru Jason Neal for creating this little slice of cyberspace for us. And I’d especially like to thank everyone who commented. I had some faith that it would be an intelligent, friendly, and considerate discussion -- but it has proved even more thought-provoking than I expected.

Please feel free to continue carrying on this discussion -- either here or in other forums. If your community organization would like to do so in a formal, physically-present way, you can have me come lead an in-person discussion about neonatives and their impact on community through the Humanities Montana Speakers’ Bureau (http://www.humanitiesmontana.org/SpeakersBureau/sponsorinstructions...) One way to kick that off its to contact me at info@johnclaytonbooks.com.

Again, thanks for participating, and carry on!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page