Adding a Few More Appalachians
On October 8th President Bush signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008. This law reauthorizes the Appalachian Regional Commission for another 5 years. This commission, developed in the 1960’s, has focused on addressing Appalachian poverty and other quality of life issues by providing financial support for economic development.
In this latest reauthorization 10 new counties (3 in Ohio, 3 in Kentucky, 2 in Tennessee and 2 in Virginia) have been added to the Appalachian Region. The addition of these new counties has caused a minor uproar. Primarily, the concern is that, by adding new counties without substantially increasing the funding, there will be less money for a larger region. This is a reasonable concern. However, my interest in this re-definition is more philosophical in nature.
In Ohio the three new counties added include Mahoning, Trumbull, and Ashtabula. Having once lived in Ashtabula County, I recognized that some of the people in the region have family roots tied to traditional Appalachia areas. Many of the people in my neighborhood had families originally from West Virginia and Kentucky. These families moved to the northeast years ago chasing a promise of a better life in the manufacturing industry. Today, however, that promise has been denied by a decreasing employment base that is a common characteristic to each of these new added counties. To that end, it appears that to be labeled Appalachian by the ARC is more a signal of poverty and economic depression than it is a cultural characteristic of a people and/or place. Is that what it should be?
This is the larger question that I have been trying to answer. What does it mean to be rural? What does it mean to be Appalachian? To me, Appalachia is tied to a particular cultural reality that is linked by a history, a world view, and a distinct sense of place. Granted, Appalachian culture has a long history of being connected with poverty. However, poverty is not the only defining characteristic. By labeling these counties without considering the cultural relevance of Appalachian values, aren’t we devaluing the uniqueness of this cultural perspective? I realize, in the end, it is all about money. But shouldn’t it be about something larger? Have we used the same limiting characteristics to define other unique cultural identities?
I believe that part of the reason the government has devalued a sophisticated understanding of Appalachian culture is because we, as scholars, have not done a sufficient job at defining and clarifying our understanding of this cultural identity. My hope is that we will continue to study, in unique ways, the complexity of Appalachian identity. Appalachian culture is more than just living a life in poverty.
Please, let me know your thoughts and ideas on what is Appalachian culture. To read more on the reauthorization, click on the following link: http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=39#October08
�