While Joel Kotkin's piece in the Weekly Standard on "Euro-Americans" has already been well-analyzed elsewhere, I'm just going to add a short, somewhat tangential note. As someone who, by virtue of my NYC/Chicago residence, Kotkin would classify as virtually European (but who owes her existence to her ancestors fleeing Europe) I'm a bit confused as to why a list of similarities between major American cities and Europe is supposed to make Europeans out of urban Americans. The differences between the two groups are immense. But rather than go for that angle, I'm (still) wondering why we can't strive for understanding and unity between the cosmopolitan urbanites and the heartland:
Kotkin writes:
The very low birth rates in both Europe and Euro-America exacerbate this "wealth effect." Seattle today has roughly the same population it did in 1960, but barely half as many children. Childlessness, in the short term, often translates into higher per-capita wealth, since it means parents don't have to share their goodies with any troublesome little tykes.
And continues:
Urban sophisticates' longstanding disdain toward the suburbs and sunbelt cities is developing into an aggressive hostility.
Now what is Kotkin's remark about "parents" not having to "share goodies with any troublesome little tykes" if not a fine example of "aggressive hostility"? (And how exactly can any parents, even Blue-State parents, be, as Kotkin seems to be claiming, childless?) To argue that Americans should have more kids is one thing (and is one thing I'm not so sure I agree with, but anyway...). To argue that those who don't have children, or who have just one or two, are intentionally hoarding "goodies" is just disgusting and false. Many of the nods such arguments will get will come from anti-cosmopolitan anti-Semites, from those who get off on assuming that people live in cities so that they can be Jewish money-grubbing, gay-loving, Europe-loving bad guys. This will be the case whether that's Kotkin's intended audience or not.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Weighing in on Kotkin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The ironic thing about guys who write anti-blue state screeds (ie kotkin, David brroks) is that they almost invariably live in some very blue part of America and would never dream of picking up and moving to alabama or whereever. It's the right wing's answer to radical chic. Red state chic.
I see goodie-hoarding as a giant selling point of the childfree lifestyle. My womb is not for rent, but why not acknowledge the personal benefits of vast quantities of disposable income and flexible vacation time (no sick days used staying home with Snotley)?
That comment about the relative population of children in Seattle is a complete red herring -- the number of children as a percentage of total population has gone down in every type of community in the US. Aging of the population is a hallmark of development. It happens because people live longer (thus increasing the numbers of adults) and because people have access to effective birth control (thus, fewer kids). Some of the reasons that people used to have a lot of kids (and still have a lot of kids in some parts of the world) are reasons it's good to be rid of: because they're needed to work the farm and/or bring in extra income with factory work, and because people expect some of their children to die of infectious diseases.
Sheesh.
Wow, Kotkin really does sound like a Marxist. He feels that the only real Americans are the ones who can't afford to buy a house in a good neighborhood, so they have to move out to one of the heavily subsidized sun-burbs and put up with all the crime, boredom (related) and traffic. Sure, it actually is possible to live and make a living in such places, but it seems an awful lot of trouble for what you get and don't get.
Post a Comment