One of the key themes in our latest readings is about out-migration from the Appalachian region during this time period. In what ways did out-migration differ across social classes? What differences were there between races? What factors were responsible for these differences? Where did people move to? Why? Did they move immediately or was there a transition period?

Out-migration differed by social class because money allowed people to move out of the area. some people were so poor that they couldn’t afford to leave what they had and start over in a place that could provide more than the Appalachian region. The middle class was the majority of people that moved out, the higher class was happy because they had money and wouldn’t have to move out of the area, the lower class didn’t have the money or the means to move out of the area. Race also had something to do with it, in the earlier stages of out-migration there was still segregation and inequality among races, the minorities thought that maybe if they moved up north and out of the region they could get away from this segregation and get away from the life they had been living starting over with something better for their future generations to come. People moved to the cities, or to areas that had money and opportunity. The goal of any citizen is to earn money and pursue a life of happiness, which is what people leaving the Appalachian region were most likely after. There was a period of movement from the area. over a period of several years people slowly moved from the area once they realized they could find better opportunity elsewhere. By this time the railroads and industry had grown and the southeastern united states was still in a period of growth and desire for labor in the cities.

One of the topics that is discussed in APP Chapter 4 is the role of music in labor struggles. For this writing prompt, I’d like you to discuss the role music played in the labor struggles in Appalachia in this time period. In what ways do we see music play a significant role in later struggles in the U.S.? Why do you think music plays such an important role in this kind of work?

Music provided a way for people in the appalachian area to express themselves and develop a culture. Bluegrass was created in the region and country also took a big role in the daily life. Banjos and fiddles helped pass the time and also gave entertainment to the local population. Music would later bring people to the area and also allow others to gain popularity and move out of a region and into the big city where they could further entertain people. Around this time the railroad industry was also quickly growing. this helped build bigger cities within the region and allowed people to come in and out of certain areas visiting. this also allowed for industry and population growth to move into the area and bring a rise in population and wealth in the area. I think that music plays such a role in mediating labor struggles because it provides a mode of relaxation and fun and a way for musicians to express themselves. music has the power to change anyones mood and give them a relief from daily life and the struggles that go with it. I personally believe music is one of the more powerful mood changing and relaxation methods there is. Music allowed people of all societies and backgrounds to get away from their labor struggles and have a good time.

Last week we watched the movie Deliverance, one of the most criticized films about Appalachia from our textbooks. For this week’s prompt, I want you to look at how people talk about the movie online. Find a website, social media site, blog, etc. and see how the writer discusses the movie. Do they mention the criticism of the movie from an Appalachian standpoint? Do they discuss the fact that the movie was filmed in Appalachia and that most of the time Appalachians are negative, stereotypical characters? Do they acknowledge that the movie is stereotypical in any way? Why do you think the website does/does not mention these concerns? What seem to be the most memorable parts of the movie for people? Why?

I looked at the first page of reviews for the movie on the imdb website. All reviews rate the movie highly and none talk about the Appalachian stereotypes thrown into the movie. Some critiques realize that this movie is set in an appalachian scene but again no one talked about stereotypes, the meaning behind the kid on the bridge, or the scene in the woods but only about the amazing scenery, or how great of an outdoor adventure it was, or how the screenwriters did such a good job at putting so much meaning into so much silence during the movie. Criticisms were all based upon personal opinion and not backed by any Appalachian standpoint or factual information.

I think that the website doesn’t talk about these concerns because they want to make the movie sound good because it is a good movie. There are already so many  negative stereotypes about appalachia and many of the people writing the critiques don’t even seem so notice the Appalachia stereotypes in the movie and are rather caught up in the beauty and tragedy and struggle of the characters to make it out alive.

The most memorable parts of the movie are based upon the scenery, the way the characters play off of each other and the exceptional acting of Burt Reynolds. Some people also seem to be caught up on the scene when they go under the bridge and the child with the banjo doesn’t even acknowledge them. They usually comment on the foreshadowing  that something is about to go wrong and it does.

By now you’ve read The Kentucky Cycle and Deliverance and several critical comments about the play. This week’s prompt asks you to think about the “so what?” aspects of thinking about the two sides. What’s the big deal? Why are so many Appalachian scholars offended by the play? Do you agree with those offended? Does it matter that the playwright/director believed he was helping the region through this play?

I found The Kentucky Cycle to be a very entertaining play but I do think that the play is fairly offensive to people in the Appalachian region. Over multiple generations The Kentucky Cycle explains a life of a poor and ruthless family living in eastern Kentucky. There is murder, betraying of family members, beatings, poor decisions, and ultimately a family that lost so much while trying so hard to stay on top of life. I believe this to be a big deal because there is always such a bad stereotype with the region and there are so many other things that the general public aren’t aware of. There is a lot of good history, good people, and good things that have come out of the Appalachian region and its culture. I also think its pretty offensive that Robert Schenkkan wrote this elaborate 6 hour play with only a days worth of knowledge and sight seeing of the Kentucky country side. I would feel more comfortable about a book that was written by someone more knowledgable about the area. I also find it a little hard to believe that they thought this would be good for the region. Personally, I don’t see what good Robert Schenkkan thought he was doing for the betterment of the eastern Kentucky region . If he thought the book would bring knowledge to a problem and a movement to fix it then fine, but other than that I don’t see any good in the play rather than just pure entertainment.