I grew up near a teeny-tiny town, but went to school in Rugby, North Dakota, a town of about 2,500 people (also a tiny town by many people's standards). There was a remarkable range of activities for children there, despite its size and relative isolation. The thing is -- and this is the core of my theory -- if people hadn't participated in several of those options, there was no way they could have been offered. There wouldn't have been enough people to form a basketball team, or a trombone player in the band, or extras in the school plays, or competitors for the debate team, or exhibits at the science fair, or members for Girl and Boy Scout troops, or dozens of other roles.
On any given night of the week, my parents had meetings for the volunteer fire department, parish council, township board, community concert series, or Sons of Norway, to name a few. One day they might be collecting money from lefse sales, another day battling a rural grass fire, and yet another day serving as an election judge. Dad built birdhouses and ordered an atlatl, mom raised bees and took photography classes. Boredom was not an option. In fact, the word was effectively banned from usage.
At first glance, this may appear to be vapid dilettantism. At second glance, I wonder if it is the very reason that 17% of the U.S. population can survive and thrive in rural America. And if this kind of approach is the mark of a small town, then you really can't take the small town out of the girl.
2 comments:
Kristy - Do you see yourself someday living full time in a small town? I kick around the idea of living in one, but perhaps I just haven't found the right one yet.
Good question, Kaye. I have no idea!
Post a Comment