Urban vs Rural

The vast majority of my life I've teetered on the border between urban and rural communities, giving me a fair amount of perspective of both sides. I wont deny that both have their benefits and their drawbacks, but the appeal of each is very much based on the preferences of the individual. Of course there are the obvious surface level draws. For city life there's the prospect of constant movement. If you want to live in an environment where there is always something going on, a metropolitan area would definitely look better to you. Also, if you fancy the idea of living a lifestyle marked by the consistent presence of other people, cities might be for you. However, there are some obvious drawbacks to that. If you're a person who doesn't like noise, traffic, crowds, or lines, then urban life might not be for you. Rural living on the other hand, shows a stark contrast. If you value nature, open space, a greater chance for privacy, and less commotion, then a rural community would probably vibe well with you. Then again, there's always the unfortunately large chance that you'll deal with boredom and monotony if you aren't comfortable with a lifestyle in tune with the more simplistic scene that comes with rural communities. Of course all of that is really determined by perspective, of which mine might have been revealed by the language I used. For me personally, I've always preferred living in a more concentrated area, but I've also liked the idea of not being terribly far from open space if I ever feel the need to get away. Most of the places I've lived have accommodated that. Living in Rockford most of my life proved fairly comfortable, although it was a city that definitely displayed a tendency to highlight the drawbacks of urban living such as crime and poverty. Never the less I enjoyed being in a place where there was more going on. However, while yes Rockford is a city, living there I was never too far from the outskirts of town which definitely set a scene of a more spacious and open environment that I had more or less unfettered access to. I also lived in Dekalb, IL for around five years while in college and during many of the intervals between semesters, which was fairly different. Northern Illinois University, arguably the epicenter of Dekalb, has often been described as a "suitcase college", in other words, a school that many people commuted to and left immediately upon the conclusion of classes, and those that did stay on campus or in the surrounding area, often elected to pack up and move back home upon the conclusion of the semester. This made for a scene of a ghost town over the summers and breaks, a few of which I did stick around for. This was the closest I've ever been to what I felt was more or less an authentic rural experience. While it wasn't an authentic farm town, the sense of being nearly completely alone, save for a handful of individuals, was powerful. The boredom and depression were just the first initial experience I had. What followed was much worse. To offset the sense that a sort of rapture had occurred and I had been left behind, I often turned to less than productive and healthy means of keeping myself busy, means that I can imagine aren't unheard of in other completely rural environments. But then again, that might just have been largely indicative of my own personal experience, instead of the general rule. Still, it was strange and uncomfortable, leading me to the conclusion that I wouldn't fair well in a small farm town or any other community of that nature. Currently, I live in Madison, WI, which I've been more or less happy with. It's a much larger city than Rockford, with a strong urban college town feel, and less of the drawbacks of urban life (although there is a fairly substantial homelessness problem, particularly in the downtown area). It's also much more eventful than any other area I've lived in for an extended period of time. I would attribute that significantly to the prominent university in the area, but to say that's the only appeal, such as was the case in Dekalb, would be entirely misleading. Madison has the appeal of being the state capital, with the capital building itself forming the epicenter of the isthmus area downtown that is seemingly perpetually bustling. That's not to mention all of the museums, shops, restaurants, galleries, and music venues that combine to make a shortage of things to do a very rare occurrence. In an effort to keep this entry from simply being reviews of various places I've lived, I'm going to switch back to the discussion of the whole "urban vs rural" debate. The differences are much more than simply population density. There's a much stronger cultural component that's very evident the more you speak with individuals from both environments. There are many views and perceptions of each other, that while sometimes based in reality, often are misconceived or just assumed to be fact when they aren't entirely such. I'm just going to rip off the band-aid and jump into the negative stereotypes that most are aware of. It's thought that many urbanites look at rural communities and believe them to be poorly educated yokels with nothing interesting going on in their lives and little to offer society aside from producing food. Of course it's also a well known trope that rural areas are dominated by support for conservative rhetoric and leaders. It's thought that people in rural environments look at city dwellers and see stuck up, obnoxious know-it-all's that think they know everything that's best for everyone and don't care about anyone else but themselves. And it's a general assumption that cities are rife with nothing but people of liberal leaning ideologies who couldn't fathom supporting a political candidate with an R next to their name While both of these perspectives are difficult to either completely disprove or confirm, there is a grain of truth to every stereotype. This doesn't necessarily make them an absolute rule. I've met people from rural communities that have been some of the most educated, cultured, and open minded individuals that I've ever had the pleasure of having in my life, and I've met people from the heart of large cities that have been the most uncultured and closed minded pains in my ass that I've ever been cursed with the presence of. The point I'm trying to illustrate with this is that personality often transcends environmental influence. Still, sometimes the preconceived notions do line up with reality, and that's just an unfortunate thing that I've come to accept. There is a divide between these two environments, there's no denying that. Whether or not it's entirely based in the reality of the situation is often irrelevant because the assumptions that drive the divide are very real. Nowhere else has this been more apparent in a recent situation that I'm aware of concerning my home state and it's largest city. In Illinois, it's not a closely kept secret that Chicago is our biggest draw. It's often used by outsiders as interchangeable with the state itself as if it's the only component of the region that's worth mentioning. I will say from much personal experience that Chicago is an amazing, unique and exciting place unlike anywhere else in the world. The architecture of the city, the history, the culture, and the spirit of the city are known pretty much everywhere. It's such a well known place that whenever I've found myself outside of the country and have been asked where I'm from, I would either simply say Chicago, or use the city as a focal point to describe where I'm from in relation to it, because very few people around the world have heard of Rockford. Unfortunately, all of what I just said brings me to the recent issue. There is a smallish (not entirely sure of the actual total amount of supporters) movement, largely coming from downstate, promoting an effort to sever Chicago from the rest of the state, making a 51st state. While the vast majority of people I know back home, along with myself, believe that it's a completely ludicrous idea that doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of coming to fruition, I still took a bit of time to read a few articles in favor of the idea, just as an attempt to be fair. The first article was mostly a mash up of the same old anti-urban sentiments with a highly political tone. I then continued through some more pieces in favor of the separation, and in every instance that overwhelmingly political element was always present. At the core of the message is the idea that the large urban center has the rest of the state in a strangle hold of sorts, bending those not within it's borders to the will of those that are. There is a tone of oppression and grave injustice at the hands of the evil urbanites and bureaucrats of the city that the rural parts of the area are suffering under. I think the vast majority of these accounts are overwhelmingly misrepresenting the situation. All that I read has led me to believe that the majority of those in favor of the idea, don't actually care about the supposed financial injustice (of which I looked into and found that Chicagoans actually bare the brunt of the financial restrictions of the state, receiving only 97 cents for every dollar sent to Springfield, while areas downstate tend to make a slight profit off of the current circumstance). What they really want to see is a carving up of the area in a manner that they believe would be favorable to those with similar ideologies to themselves. The irony in this is that if the plan were to be enacted, the surrounding areas would most likely be the ones to suffer the worst consequences. After reading up on this situation, I've learned that it's far from unique. There have been efforts made all over the country to politically separate large urban areas from the surrounding rural areas. I'm aware of such movements to separate LA and the San Francisco Bay Area from the rest of California, as well as a push to cut off New York City from the rest of the state of New York. What all this is indicative of, in my mind, is a mentality that all of a rural areas problems will be solved if they can manage to separate themselves entirely from an urban area that they see as the source of all of their woes. I should also say that there are some in cities who don't seem too opposed to the idea either, and would gladly flip the metaphorical middle finger right back. But I see the whole idea is mostly just lazy and shows that many would like to blame their problems on people perceived as "other" from them, rather than put in the effort to work things out and improve conditions for those in both environments. The perceived conflict between urbanites and rural dwellers goes back to the dawn of cities themselves, making it one of the oldest concerns there is. Like so many issues I've gone over, this is one that likely doesn't have a simple fix, but I believe that easing the animosity is a good place to start. Rural areas and communities are beautiful. There's a simple elegance to the freedom, wide open and rustic beauty that they often convey that can't be found anywhere else. Cities are remarkable. They're the epitome of the growth and capabilities of humanity that are flourishing centers of culture. Both environments should be appreciated and exalted for what they give to the world instead of berated and slandered for their perceived flaws.