
On Being Midwestern: The Burden of Normality - samclemens
http://iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2017_Fall_Christman.php
======
Veelox
I grew up in the Midwest and moved to Silicon Valley. I think that people here
don't understand what this author describes as "Midwestern history is a study
in racial quarantine." I would go as far as to say that racial is the wrong
word to describe what happens in the Midwest.

I think that communities in the Midwest have tighter cultural restrictions on
what it means to be "one of us." This can be affected by where you live, where
you work, where you go to church, where your kids go to school, what kind of
car you drive, what you do for fun, how you dress, even how you talk.
Midwesterners are happy to accept someone who matches them in all these areas
regardless of skin color. This is why you get backlash from them when you call
them racist because the criteria they use is not skin color its all the other
stuff.

Yet on the other hand, most PoC in the Midwest have a culture that is
different on most of the above. So when a white Midwesterner doesn't treat a
black Midwesterner that speaks, dresses, even walks differently as a part of
the community is it racism? I would say no since it isn't about race but is
about culture. But on the other hand, when most white people do this to most
black people, it sure does start to look like it.

This puts the Midwest in a really hard place because just about any white
person can claim (truthfully) they are not being racist. Yet, the outcome of
the collective actions of all of them end up with a pretty strong divide that
is mostly along racial lines.

Does anyone have suggestions on how to fix this? One option would be to have
the cultures integrate so there are not sub communities for PoC. This doesn't
seem to have worked. But the other option is that you expect Midwesterners to
treat people from outside their community the same as people inside their
community. That isn't going to happen. So it seems like it is an impossible
situation.

~~~
closeparen
The modern left-wing view of racism is as a systematic, structural power
relationship between races. Individual decisions branching on skin color is
neither necessary nor sufficient to get there, although it can and
historically has contributed.

For example, divesting from your neighborhood out of concern for your property
value when PoC start to move in does not necessarily reflect an individual
racial bias. It could be a purely rational economic calculation based on other
people’s biases. It’s still the bread and butter of the system of racism.

Just like discrimination that branches on culture or class and only
incidentally produces outcomes along racial lines.

~~~
weberc2
The problem with this view is that it describes correlates instead of causes,
and worse--that it confuses the two: most people understand racism to mean
something like "differences caused by race", and thus something that is
morally reprehensible. Your example is one that is _caused_ (though
indirectly) by racism, but others examples are not causal but correlated (or
at least so indirectly causal as to be meaningless)--for example, that
midwesterners appear racist because they have a lower threshold for cultural
differences, which is _caused_ by the _correlation_ between culture and race.

Besides this, the left-wing view is easily confused with the popular notion of
racism, which is widely considered to be immoral, and I think often the
proponents of this viewpoint abuse the confusion, deliberately accusing
skeptics and dissenters of "racism" without being clear that they mean the
probably-benign "systemic racism" instead of the clearly immoral "racism".
Further, many of these proponents also tend to consider "questioning systemic
racism theory" to be an act of (systemic) "racism" because it inhibits the
consensus required to combat (systemic) "racism".

TL;DR I think the marketing was deliberately obfuscatory, and this has had a
huge detrimental impact on our national racial.

~~~
throwawayjava
I believe the reason that the root post is the top-voted comment is that it
poses a helpful question: how do we fix this?

My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral
status and start caring more about _actually fixing things_.

A system with de facto separate and unequal schools is just as bad as a system
with de jure separate and unequal schools. Whether that's the result of an
emergent phenomenon or explicit planning has little effect on the people stuck
in the system.

If someone's fragile moral ego gets in the way of an accurate description of
the problem... well, that person's ego is the problem.

FWIW you see the same problem in flailing engineering projects.

~~~
weberc2
> My suggestion is that people stop being so damn concerned about their moral
> status and start caring more about actually fixing things.

This is silly. Moral status is a necessary component of political capital. The
entire reason the progressive left stuck to their confusing "systemic racism"
term is because it conveniently allows them to strip dissidents and critics of
the political capital necessary to implement their fixes or even advance the
national discourse. Of course, we could think wishfully about a world where
politics were irrelevant (as I sometimes do), but that's not productive.

~~~
throwawayjava
What alternative term would you use to refer to racially disparate outcomes
that are the result of how large systems operate?

The term "systemic racism" was coined and stuck because it's evocative of the
actual idea, not as some sort of grand conspiracy to strip you of your honor.

But I don't care. We can call it "silly putty" if it means we can actually
talk about it instead of closely defending our honor. And if you have an
alternative name that is evocative of the underlying problem and doesn't
offend you, I'd love to hear it.

 _> This is silly_

It is my experience that when people disarm themselves, productive
conversations are possible.

Perhaps I'm wrong. But if so, then there's no solution anyways. So we might as
well try.

~~~
weberc2
It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you
respond with straw men and ad hominems. Of course, I'm used to it because I
challenge positions like yours a lot. Still, the constant need to redirect
these bad faith rebuttals is exhausting.

To be clear, I don't care much for "my honor". Like I said, I care about
making good outcomes politically tenable. As for conspiracy theories, that's
literally what "systemic racism" is. And we _could_ talk about it if it
weren't for all of the weasel words and slander.

If you cared about the conversation, you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel
words instead of attacking the people who call them out.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you
respond with straw men and ad hominems_

You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies.

 _> As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is_

I mean, that's clearly hyperbolic, right? Systemic racism is a real thing --
see red lining or Jim Crow. We can at least agree that the concept is useful
and refers to a real phenomenon, even if we're going to debate the
severity/degree of that phenomenon in the present.

 _> you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words_

I don't think systemic racism is a weasel word. I think it's a well-chosen,
evocative, and just damn accurate noun for the concept it represents.

Again, do you have an alternative word?

~~~
weberc2
> You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My
> apologies.

Thank you for the apology; I understand the cumulative frustration bit.
Hopefully I wasn't the cause of the frustration in the other thread.

> Again, do you have an alternative word?

I would say "disparate outcomes that correlate with race" or some such. I
don't object to "systemic racism" when it specifically means "disparate
outcomes _caused_ by racism" (e.g., redlining and jim crow); however, it's
often used as a blanket term for any racial disparity whether or not there is
evidence that it's actually part of the system and not simply the result of
different choices made by different groups, or an artifact of documented
historical oppression. In the latter case, its effect is to shut down any
conversation about the actual cause of the disparity, because anyone who
questions the systemic racism explanation is guilty of endorsing racism.

So if that's not a weasel word, it's something similarly nefarious and
inhibitive of dialog.

I really think all parties (or at least those who aren't threatened by
advancing the dialog) are better served by clear, meaningful terms, and I
don't think that's what we have with "systemic racism". Insofar as it means
what you say, then it's grossly and widely misused, which has the same effect
as if the word were meaningless to begin with.

~~~
throwawayjava
I don't think the line you're trying to draw is easy -- or even possible -- to
draw.

What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now
remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even after
those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism?

In almost all cases, systemic racism is caused by a complex mix of historical
racism, contemporary racism, and rational economic choices that aren't taken
with explicit racial intent but none-the-less help sustain the inertia of the
system.

~~~
weberc2
> What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now
> remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even
> after those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism?

Disclaimer: This is mostly exploring a society where racism (as it is
traditionally defined) has been completely removed. This isn't what we have
(we both agree on this point), but the exercise is still useful in theory.

Assuming all such policies are removed, I would confidently say "no" for lots
of reasons. Firstly, integration doesn't happen the moment racist forces are
removed. Minority groups can and often do self-segregate for reasons that no
reasonable person would identify as anti-minority racism (e.g., the social
stability in a shared culture, hatred for people who look like historical
oppressors [I guess this one is racism, but not one that is talked about under
the rubric of 'systemic racism'], etc). Secondly, all else equal, a system in
which wealth grows linearly would _still_ see a growing disparity between
disparate races even apart from racism; this is not desirable, but it's still
not "systemic racism" in any meaningful sense. Thirdly, there are economies of
scale to be had by participating in the majority culture, privileging those
who've integrated over those who haven't--if you remove barriers to
integration and some minority groups haven't integrated, they're at a
disadvantage. Some might argue that this is systemic racism because the system
privileges one group over another, but it's only related to race insofar as
races tend to correlate with cultures, and also because it is a universal
cultural reality completely divorced from any racist motive. Lastly, (by
definition) different cultures make different decisions in different
distributions--if some cultures make decisions that lead to poorer outcomes
_even if those cultures are the manifestation of historical oppression_ , it's
_still_ not systemic racism if all active forces of racism have been removed
from the system.

Of course, all of this goes out the window if "the system" encompasses
minority cultures and "racism" is allowed to mean "any disparity between
races"; however, no one uses it in that sense, or at least every time a
moderate or conservative brings up one of these "different choices ->
different outcomes" possibilities, legions of university professors and other
esteemed progressives shout them down, "no, it's systemic racism!" implying
that "systemic racism" excludes cultures that choose their own disparities.

Of course, this whole semantic exploration is testament to the ambiguous
nature of the term.

------
rayiner
> In a 2015 essay for Slate, “The Rust-Belt Theory of Low-Cost High Culture,”
> reporter Alec McGillis marveled at the cheapness—and, it seems, the mere
> presence—of good orchestra and museum tickets in interior cities:

One fact of history that’s often overlooked is that patronage has left an
incredible legacy in places like Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
etc. For example, one of the finest collections of French Impressionism in the
US is not in New York or San Francisco, but Philadelphia. The art museums in
Pittsburgh are amazing, easily worth the (very affordable) trip out to see
them.

We tend to define these cities by the decline of their industrial economic
base, but we forget their history. The age of the industrialists started in
about 1860. By 1900, Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinatti, St. Louis, Milwaukee,
Detroit, and Pittsburgh were among the 15 largest cities in the country (the
top 15 also included Philadelphia and Baltimore—two cities which have
phenomenal culture compared to what you’d expect based on their present
economies). Cleveland, with its famous orchestra, was one of the ten largest
US cities from 1890-1970.

~~~
m_mueller
Wait, is Philly considered Midwestern, not East Coast?

~~~
SauciestGNU
Not Midwestern, but Rust Belt.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Most of the East Coast, once you get far from the largest metros, _is_
actually Rust Belt. The entire canal system running from Chicago to New York
was once shipping and manufacturing, so was New Jersey, so were parts of New
England, Pittsburgh was steel, etc.

------
mark_l_watson
Nice read! My wife and I just moved to Urbana/Champaign Illinois 4 months ago
for my new job, and the Midwest really is different (from Arizona and
California where we lived before). People are really nice, food is great, very
inexpensive place to live, and there is real natural beauty here if you look
for it. Anyways, we are delighted with this area.

~~~
adam
Congrats on the move. I grew up in Champaign. I wanted to get out of there by
the time I was 18, but now I get back at least once a year and have a new
appreciation for the place. Go to Papa Dels pizza if you haven't been. Get the
deep dish. It will change your life.

~~~
fotbr
I've been preaching the goodness that is Papa Dels since I was out there for a
conference and programming competition at UIUC in the very early 2000s. Happy
to see I'm not the only one.

Just be aware, a slice of the deep dish is pretty much a meal by itself.

------
humanrebar
> ...humility is one of those words, like authenticity or (lately) resistance,
> that serves mainly to advertise the absence of the thing named...

Humility is having a realistic view of your own abilities and worth while
being OK with it. It's not a vacuum of self-worth or something. We have other
words for that.

To illustrate, it's not _humble_ for LeBron James to say he's bad at
basketball. It would be _humble_ for him to claim his ability while
internalizing his limitations, both on the court and off.

So, to bring this back to Midwesterners, a Midwestern might say, "Yeah, I'm a
great programmer, but it's not like I'm going to change the world through
constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility.
Pass the green bean casserole, please."

~~~
sp332
I think it just meant that someone who claims to be humble is probably
bragging. Not that no one is humble.

~~~
Veelox
I see humility as having a proper understanding of your own ability without
arrogance. If I am at Thanksgiving dinner and my mom tries to brag that I am
the best programmer in the state it is humble to correct her in saying that
even though I have a great job, there are a lot of things I still cannot do.

~~~
sp332
But look at the context. "Authenticity" has been made meaningless, so any
mass-produced focus-grouped consumer product can be called "authentic". And
it's now the same with humble, which mean that it should describe something
small, frugal, or at least not-ostentatious. But now big, splurgy things or
places call themselves humble.

------
jerf
Speaking as a Midwesterener, it was a valiant attempt to examine the Midwest
without descending into contempt and cliches, but alas, it ultimately failed,
and failed _hard_. Partial credit given for making it for a few paragraphs
before descending into the usual trite analysis.

~~~
domparise
Speaking also as a Midwesterner, I would disagree. I was born and raised in
Michigan, and have not really left much other than to couch hop and envy the
lives of my friends who've moved out to the coast. I feel that the contempt
the author descends into is self-inflicted, and may representative of the
culture and authors midwestern upbringing. From what I've observed,
midwesterners are brutally humble, almost to a fault, probably stemming from
the deeply rooted conservative values. Being midwestern, to me, is not its own
identity, but rather a lack of the other negative identities of the regions.
Speaking in terms of stereotypes I hear here (not trying to discredit these
regions) the vibe is: I'm NOT a no-patience jerk like on the east coast, I'm
NOT lazy and pretentious like on the west coast, I'm NOT shallow and two-faced
like in the south, therefore, as a midwesterner my strongest identity is
defined by a lack of those negative associations. Midwesterns choose not to be
defined by what they are, which I see as no-nonsense and generally pretty
authentic and genuine, but rather by what they are not. "We are not all of
those bad things those other people in those other places are, and that's our
best quality." But through my travels I've learned that not all people in
those places are like that, and not all midwesterners are nice, but in general
they prefer to be viewed as collective lack of bad things, rather than a
collection of good things. This, plus an underlying more conservative and
humble perspective, I feel gives light to the lack of regional identity that
is perceived by people both inside and outside of the Midwest.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>From what I've observed, midwesterners are brutally humble, almost to a
fault, probably stemming from the deeply rooted conservative values. Being
midwestern, to me, is not its own identity, but rather a lack of the other
negative identities of the regions. Speaking in terms of stereotypes I hear
here (not trying to discredit these regions) the vibe is: I'm NOT a no-
patience jerk like on the east coast, I'm NOT lazy and pretentious like on the
west coast, I'm NOT shallow and two-faced like in the south, therefore, as a
midwesterner my strongest identity is defined by a lack of those negative
associations.

Thanks for letting us know that some people think it's humble to be
xenophobic. Funny thing: my in-laws are from the Midwest, and they've _never_
spoken like this.

~~~
logfromblammo
I am from the Midwest, currently living in the South, and I think "shallow and
two-faced" may actually be putting it too mildly. The idea that these assholes
may actually elect Roy Moore after he unconstitutionally rammed his religion
down other people's throats in an official capacity is bad enough, but after
mounting credible evidence of him habitually creeping on 14-year-old girls as
a grown-ass adult man? No f'kin' way.

Jared Fogle (the Subway creep) went to my high school in Indiana, and if he
showed up to a reunion after getting out of the pokey, he would _not_ get the
same reception as Roy Moore currently gets in Gadsden, Alabama. Fogle couldn't
win an election for _county roadkill remover_ , much less senator for the
whole state.

We don't rag on other regions as a matter of course, but we do judge them by
their perceived shortcomings, even if we don't call them out on it.

And Midwesterners are stereotyped. We're small-minded, prudish, unfashionable,
uncultured, suspicious, avoidant, passive-aggressive, and boring. We drink pop
and weak beer and eat fried cheese. Didn't you know?

------
ph33t
An observation ... just the fact that many here treat the "midwest" as one
place in their comments speaks of maybe misunderstanding/ignorance or even
arrogance. As a person who has lived in Wisconsin (suburban and rural),
Minnesota (urban and suburban), and Chicago, there is an absolutely astounding
difference in people, attitude, and culture in all 3 areas. Granted none are
really like the east or west coasts, but they are all vastly different places
to live.

~~~
protomyth
Yeah, the whole idea of "midwest" is pretty flawed. Like a lot of places you
really need to look at the migration patterns that made up the communities
(including what tribes got shoved where). I've often said that all these scifi
maps about the breakup of the US that have ND and MN in the same country just
don't get how far the area has diverged. Heck, the difference between St.
Cloud MN and Minneapolis MN is amazing.

~~~
onychomys
Well yeah, because St. Cloud is the armpit of Minnesota.

~~~
protomyth
St. Cloud actually has nice people who get mighty offended when you won't let
them help you. I reserve derogatory comments for some of the Twin City
suburbs.

------
le-mark
I found this piece to be interesting, but rather odd too. For example from the
middle;

 _I took the first option. As a child, I accepted without thinking that my
small town, a city of 9,383 people, contained within it every possible human
type; if I could not fit in here, I would not fit in anywhere. (“Fitting in” I
defined as being occupied on Friday nights and, sooner or later, kissing a
girl.) Every week that passed in which I did not meet these criteria—which was
most of them—became a prophecy. Every perception, every idea, every opinion
that I could not make immediately legible to my peers became proof of an
almost metaphysical estrangement, an oceanic differentness that could not be
changed and could not be borne. ... I knew that cities existed, but they were
all surely just Michigan farm towns joined together n number of times,
depending on population. Owing to a basically phlegmatic temperament, and the
fear of hurting my parents, I made it to college without committing suicide;
there, the thing solved itself. But I worry what would have happened—what does
often happen—to the kid like me, but with worse test scores, bad parents, an
unlocked gun cabinet._

This sounds like the general lament of an intelligent, intellectually curious
person growing up than anything specific to the midwest. Of course ones ideas
aren't understood, and if too many big words are used then one marks
themselves as "talking funny". There are a great many under the 75th
percentile after all.

The one thing I found missing from the present article was the nearly total
absence of _oppurtunity_ in all these rural midwestern towns. A whole lot of
my peers put a trailer on Mom/Dads (or Grandma/Grandpa's) land, and eked lives
_somehow_. I honestly don't know how. The poverty, the grinding hopelessness
is endemic for the region. So yeah, there's nothing else to talk about, so you
talk about the neighbors, or that strange kid at school who wear's the sweater
with puff balls. And don't by any means be different lest you be gossiped
about as well.

~~~
sp332
_This sounds like the general lament of an intelligent, intellectually curious
person growing up than anything specific to the midwest._

But in a larger city you'd encounter more kinds of people and feel less weird.
You'd also be more likely to meet people who are actually relatable.

~~~
briankelly
But that has little to do with being in the Midwest. You'd meet a bigger
variety of people in Cincinnati than 29 Palms, CA. People seem to conflate
"small town America" with Midwest while overlooking their own rural backyards
and ignoring Midwestern cities.

------
humanrebar
Seems odd to do an analysis of Midwestern culture and not bring up its
religious differences with the rest of America, especially the South, which is
generally more Baptist and charismatic.

------
EADGBE
_" reporter Alec McGillis marveled at the cheapness—and, it seems, the mere
presence—of good orchestra and museum tickets in interior cities"_

I'm always impressed that foreigners (I'll call them that, since they tend to
think the same of us) discount art from the heartland simply by being shocked
it even exists.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Are you implying that them being aware of the place, possibly relocating there
and participating in local government is better?

------
jccalhoun
Flatness is mentioned five times. Not where I grew up and there are certainly
days in the warm months when I struggle to ride my bicycle up hills that I
wish all of the midwest was flat.

~~~
lostapathy
I'm from Kansas, I get so sick of hearing how flat it is here. Florida and
Illinois are both much flatter, and oddly enough I hear how flat Kansas is
from residents of both.

Nobody carries on about Texas being flat and boring, yet it's only marginally
less flat than Kansas.

~~~
pnutjam
<i>Nobody carries on about Texas being flat and boring...</i>Well then, you
heard it here first. What's the worst thing about Texas? There's so much of
it.

------
dsschnau
born and raised in michigan, lived all over the state. I hope i die here. This
nerd doesn't know shit

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> This nerd doesn't know shit

While you probably have a point, this isn't a very professional or productive
way of expressing your opinion.

edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? Is "This nerd
doesn't know shit" really the kind of dialog that we want to promote on this
site?

~~~
MrLeap
I didn't downvote you, but calling him out on his language is significantly
less interesting than the thing the parent said. If your quote was the only
thing he said you'd be right. I think the quote added a lot of context and
information his message though.

> born and raised in michigan, lived all over the state. I hope i die here.

That statement on its own communicates he likes Michigan, has no interest in
moving.

> This nerd doesn't know shit

Adding this sentence modifies my interpretation of the first. This guy _loves_
Michigan. He feels strongly about his community and the contents of the
article offend him. We can nitpick the insult on the end or the language he
used, but I think what he had to say about Michigan was "putting himself out
there" a little bit that makes it harder to do. It didn't feel like trolling
to me, felt like a genuine dude with genuine things to say.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> We can nitpick the insult on the end or the language he used, but I think
> what he had to say about Michigan was "putting himself out there" a little
> bit that makes it harder to do.

I didn't say he was trolling. In fact, I said "While you probably have a
point," emphasizing the fact that there may be a substantive post within the
comment.

However, it says in the Hacker News Guidelines[1], "Don't be snarky. Comments
should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more
divisive." His comment contained too much snark and not enough civility to be
a productive post. If those kinds of comments are left to multiply, this site
may lose its capacity for substantive, nuanced discussion of topics that many
people disagree with.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
losteverything
Strahler and Strahler's college text charted how people like their own region
and dont like others as much. Perceptions are strong

Having 50% midwestern life and 50% east coast, i size up the people first
before i say im from (midwest state) or (eastern state).

Also, rent a car with same-state plates when you move into a new house from
out of state. Most of your neighbors will make assumptions about you if the
state plate is different. Once you get cars registered put on the new plates
and return the rental.

Where are the new neighbors from?

"New York" "Montana" "Florida" "Massachusetts" "Iowa" "Utah" "California"

Pushy,outdoorsy,poor or old, liberal, farmers, Mormon, nutty

------
gamechangr
I grew up in the Midwest (Kansas City) .The first problem is no one knows who
is being described.

"Midwestern" \- It's a term used by the media. They tell us it includes
Oklahoma and North Dakota (which are insanely different?). It's supposed to
include Chicago, Milwaukee, Omaha, and Topeka?

Half of the West coast thinks "midwest" includes the South?

They need a new term....badly.

------
throwaway15814
Just moved out of the midwest.. I was originally from the East coast and moved
back.

I'll just say this, being a minority, I was shocked at how much contempt
people had towards middle-easterners and black people. On numerous occasions
people have said they've been "dirtying up the neighborhoods which is why they
moved to another burb... they need to take better care of their lawns, etc".
Out of all the companies that I've worked in the midwest, I've ever had a co-
worker that was a black software engineer. People are put down in unfortunate
ways. it's really fucking hard to climb up the corporate ladder than either
coasts

Pay is crap.. people have been clamoring that the midwest is going to be the
next silicon alley.

There's a reason why Chicago was the only major city to drop in population the
last couple of years. There aren't that many interesting projects happening,
it's not conducive to start-ups. i've had more arguments in the midwest with
people that think tesla is a POS company for not following the rules. there's
a lot of people averse to change.

~~~
mikestew
_Out of all the companies that I 've worked in the midwest, I've ever had a
co-worker that was a black software engineer._

The only black software engineer I’ve worked with (as in, on my team and
writes code) since moving was the guy I hired. And I live in Seattle and I’ve
worked at Microsoft. It’s a big shock moving from Indiana, where I’d had
several black coworkers over the years. So I’ll see your Midwestern Rednecks
anecdote, and raise you a Coastal Snobs Shocked That Midwest Has Internet.

 _i 've had more arguments in the midwest with people that think tesla is a
POS company for not following the rules._

Buncha rubes, not going gaga over an unprofitable company getting Federal
subsidies so that rich people can buy new toys. So you’re saying you
absolutley lack the ability to fathom why someone might not share your
enthusiasm?

~~~
throwaway15814
Why'd you move out of Indiana my friend?

|So you’re saying you absolutley lack the ability to fathom why someone might
not share your enthusiasm?

Also I can empathize why people are against Tesla, it's just the general
mindset in the midwest when it comes to new technologies. There's no wrong or
right it's just the way life is out there.

~~~
mikestew
One -27F January day, I looked at my wife and said, “this is America, and we
don’t have to live like this.” So we moved to North Carolina, then eventually
got a gig with Microsoft. Haven’t worked at Microsoft in twelve years, but
Seattle area suits us so we never left.

 _Also I can empathize why people are against Tesla, it 's just the general
mindset in the midwest when it comes to new technologies._

More than just the politics are conservative. :-)

~~~
jhpankow
When it is -27F outside, what do you do? Do you go to work? Do you crank up
the furnace and huddle under an electric blanket and wait for it to get above
0F again?

~~~
mikestew
At the time I got on the internet and gave this new website called monster.com
(stupid name for a job board, it’ll never last) a shot, narrowing my search
parameters to “charlotte, nc”. True story.

But seriously, you stay inside if at all possible. Cars often don’t start, and
as a consequence businesses don’t open. If you must go somewhere in the car,
dress like you’ll be walking. If you don’t, and your breaks, you can die.
OTOH, that’s Indiana. Whitehorse, Yukon, they probably shrug their shoulders
with a “feels like it might be warming up, eh?” And sub-zero F temps didn’t
stop from playing outside as kids. We just didn’t stay out long. Cover every
exposed body part, layer on the insulation, won’t kill you _right_ away. Hell,
I’ve gone on a nice, brisk training run when it’s -10F. Again, don’t skimp on
the clothing, file a flight plan with the spouse/SO/roommate (these days I
just carry a phone), tell your friends later about your epic run this morning.

Though extreme cold can probably kill you faster than extreme heat, like
anything else if you just use some sense and respect the fact that you _can_
die in such conditions, you’ll be fine.

------
randyrand
A little too much liberal hogwash for my taste - e.g trying to explain as much
as possible with skin-color identity politics. But glad others liked the
article.

------
komali2
I appreciate the effort the author put into this (and he/she is clearly a good
writer), but as a Wisconsinite I can't help but chuckle at the length and type
of content - it's thousands of well-chosen words in an academic voice
describing... the Midwest. To me, nothing is more definitively a real metaphor
for "boring" than my home.

------
mcguire
The author here implicitly assumes the truth of the descriptions of the
Midwest and Midwesterners that he discusses. Further, also assumes that
nothing changes, nothing happens in the Midwest. (I particularly liked the
intro; now try describing the Midwest to someone who _doesn 't actually love
there_.) Everyone is _from_ the Midwest or _describing_ the Midwest, no one
seems to be living there.

Here's a hint: there is no Midwest. That should be obvious; it's roughly twice
as far from Oklahoma City to St. Louis as from London to Paris.

If you want to read about the past of the central part of the US, can I
suggest a brilliant writer who isn't mentioned in the article: Walter Prescott
Webb. See _The Great Plains_ or _The Frontier_.

~~~
notfromhere
Lumping the west plains and midwest together into one region seems weird. In
my mind, midwest is purely the great lakes states.

~~~
mcguire
To an extent, that's true. But they really have more in common than either
does with any other region.

------
analog31
What I'd like to know is if any other place is substantially different. I
lived in Texas for a while, and met relatively few people who behaved like
stereotypical Texans.

I live in Wisconsin, and it is a divided state. There is heavy racial
segregation, plus strong red/blue and city/rural divisions. That makes it
pretty hard to identify a single unifying culture.

Perhaps all the Midwest lacks is branding.

------
merolish
I moved to Minneapolis last month after working as a software developer in NYC
for twelve years. It still feels like I'm on vacation in comparison, with all
this space and a reasonable cost of living. My main concern is career
development with the thinner tech scene out here (Chicago didn't seem bad when
I looked, although I'd prefer somewhere smaller).

~~~
ryanx435
the tech scene isn't very broad, but there is a lot of depth in the medical
device scene. Also, surprisingly, a lot of developer jobs with some of the
bigger banks and the insurance companies.

~~~
strictnein
Yeah, US Bank, Wells Fargo, American Express, and Ameriprise have significant
presences here.

Also lots of tech jobs at Target and Best Buy, and firms like UnitedHealth
Group, General Mills, and Cargill.

------
RickJWag
I was raised in Mitchell, South Dakota, a midwest town of about 15,000.

The vast majority were white, a small number of Native Americans (we all
called them Indians back then) and just one black family. The black family's
father was elected mayor, he was popular.

There was some racism, not as much as people seem to think. IMHO, I've seen
more racism in bigger cities.

------
socalnate1
Sorta related, vox had this great article and interactive poll as to which
states are actually in the midwest, really interesting.

[https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10825534/which-states-in-
midwe...](https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10825534/which-states-in-midwest)

------
programminggeek
This is about tribes, not races. Midwest is very much a rural vs. urban notion
more than a racial one.

------
fahayekwasright
Growing up in Indiana, I thought my home was backward and boring, and wanted
to see what the rest of the world had to offer. After spending 10 years in a
variety of cities across the world, I was relieved to find that Indiana houses
were still cheap enough that I could buy one and move back.

------
tengbretson
> the vast majority of humans have worked hard, or been worked hard, for all
> of recorded history

Huh that's an interesting way of saying that...

> a person might explain these tropes of featurelessness by pointing out the
> similarities imposed across the Midwestern landscape by capitalism.

Oh. That's why. Trash article.

