I recently was reading the news feeds for the Fargo Forum and came across an article about an article that was published by National Geographic on the dying towns of North Dakota. Needless to say, this article has irked many a native North Dakotan. To read the article you would think that North Dakota itself is a dying state and has a monopoly on ghost towns.
The article itself can be found at the National Geographic site.
This article paints a grim picture of life in North Dakota. According to the article:
These last couple of sentences are pretty bold. They don't take in consideration that with improved farming techniques, it takes fewer people to maintain larger fields. Also, people growing up find new opportunities in the cities of North Dakota that are experiencing tremendous growth. Many towns were established as stops during the building of the railroad. Once the railroad was complete, they were no longer needed, and thus dried up. Would this not be considered "shifting economic opportunities?" I think it is a little harsh to say that the decline is always because "something in the earth and sky mutinied against the settlers." I do not see how this is any different then towns in California that were built during the gold rush, and died when the gold fever subsided.
The article also is way off-base when it comes to the picture it paints of the people of ND.
In my experience, North Dakotans are some of the hardiest and friendliest people there are. Sure, there is a lot of complaining about the weather, but deep down there is also a certain pride associated in surviving in some of the harshest extremes of the lower 48.
North Dakotans do not easily give up. To say they are "bested" is an insult. One has only to look at the responses during recent natural disasters to see that. During the floods of '97, there were no shortage of volunteers ready to go out to help sandbag at any hour of the night. I worked a graveyard shift and was on my way home around 4AM one night when I heard the call for help at a location near my home. I rushed to help only to find 20 other people there had nearly completed reinforcing the sandbag dike in that spot. Teachers at NDSu cut classes short or called them off, encouraging the students to help with the volunteer efforts. Everyone worked together to fight back the waters. And everyone was crushed when the news came that the efforts were not enough for Grand Forks. Nearly the entire city was flooded. Downtown buildings burned with fires that could not be put out because the fire crews could not get to them. It was much like scenes seen years later in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Grand Forks was flooded, but not "bested." Eleven years later it is still a thriving town.
I realize that the purpose of the article was to highlight the dying towns of ND, but the article took on a depressing tone to it that I found unnecessary. There was very little mention of the growing technological and other opportunities to be found in ND. Nothing mentioned of the small towns that manage to thrive. It is like the authors set out to paint the most depressing view of the entire state that they could. I do know that the small towns are severely hurting. I wouldn't have a problem with the article trying to document the problems of these small towns if it hadn't tried to make it seem like the entire state was suffering. But to paint the people of North Dakota as depressed, suicidal, and "bested?" That is not cool at all.
The article itself can be found at the National Geographic site.
This article paints a grim picture of life in North Dakota. According to the article:
QUOTE:
This is the place where American assumptions about the land proved to be wrong. The homesteaders believed rain followed the plow. In the grasslands of western Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, they learned better. And so for almost a century we’ve watched stranded towns and houses fall one by one like autumn leaves in the chill of October. In most of the United States, abandoned buildings are a sign of change and shifting economic opportunities. On the High Plains, they always mean that something in the earth and the sky mutinied against the settlers.
This is the place where American assumptions about the land proved to be wrong. The homesteaders believed rain followed the plow. In the grasslands of western Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, they learned better. And so for almost a century we’ve watched stranded towns and houses fall one by one like autumn leaves in the chill of October. In most of the United States, abandoned buildings are a sign of change and shifting economic opportunities. On the High Plains, they always mean that something in the earth and the sky mutinied against the settlers.
These last couple of sentences are pretty bold. They don't take in consideration that with improved farming techniques, it takes fewer people to maintain larger fields. Also, people growing up find new opportunities in the cities of North Dakota that are experiencing tremendous growth. Many towns were established as stops during the building of the railroad. Once the railroad was complete, they were no longer needed, and thus dried up. Would this not be considered "shifting economic opportunities?" I think it is a little harsh to say that the decline is always because "something in the earth and sky mutinied against the settlers." I do not see how this is any different then towns in California that were built during the gold rush, and died when the gold fever subsided.
The article also is way off-base when it comes to the picture it paints of the people of ND.
QUOTE:
Successive human waves have been bested on the High Plains of North Dakota.
Successive human waves have been bested on the High Plains of North Dakota.
QUOTE:
Self-destruction is not a forbidden subject in North Dakota, and people easily tick off cases in their neighborhoods.
Self-destruction is not a forbidden subject in North Dakota, and people easily tick off cases in their neighborhoods.
In my experience, North Dakotans are some of the hardiest and friendliest people there are. Sure, there is a lot of complaining about the weather, but deep down there is also a certain pride associated in surviving in some of the harshest extremes of the lower 48.
North Dakotans do not easily give up. To say they are "bested" is an insult. One has only to look at the responses during recent natural disasters to see that. During the floods of '97, there were no shortage of volunteers ready to go out to help sandbag at any hour of the night. I worked a graveyard shift and was on my way home around 4AM one night when I heard the call for help at a location near my home. I rushed to help only to find 20 other people there had nearly completed reinforcing the sandbag dike in that spot. Teachers at NDSu cut classes short or called them off, encouraging the students to help with the volunteer efforts. Everyone worked together to fight back the waters. And everyone was crushed when the news came that the efforts were not enough for Grand Forks. Nearly the entire city was flooded. Downtown buildings burned with fires that could not be put out because the fire crews could not get to them. It was much like scenes seen years later in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Grand Forks was flooded, but not "bested." Eleven years later it is still a thriving town.
I realize that the purpose of the article was to highlight the dying towns of ND, but the article took on a depressing tone to it that I found unnecessary. There was very little mention of the growing technological and other opportunities to be found in ND. Nothing mentioned of the small towns that manage to thrive. It is like the authors set out to paint the most depressing view of the entire state that they could. I do know that the small towns are severely hurting. I wouldn't have a problem with the article trying to document the problems of these small towns if it hadn't tried to make it seem like the entire state was suffering. But to paint the people of North Dakota as depressed, suicidal, and "bested?" That is not cool at all.