Reflective Tag: Throughout the semester I conducted a significant amount of research on the Appalachian region. That being said, most of the research concerned general topics related to Appalachia. My research essay provided me with the opportunity to focus on a single aspect of Appalachia that was interesting to me. Choosing a topic that I was interested in made the research more enjoyable because I was looking for answers to questions that I came up with.

The Truth Behind Economic Hardship in Appalachia

The Appalachian region, like any other region, has developed at the hand of its population. The region is comprised of people from all social classes that can be found in all areas of the region. Aside from the population, each area in Appalachia is influenced by internal and external factors. The most rural parts of the region demonstrate less external influence, while the urban areas tend to express influence from many other areas of the United States and world. Unfortunately, it has become obvious that outsiders’ tend to base their opinions of the Appalachian region as a whole on a select few features that are common among the rural areas. These stereotypes have played a noticeable role in the development of the region. Fortunately, the more urban parts of the region have not displayed as many signs of this hindrance. However, the impact of these stereotypes is quite noticeable in the rural areas that have little opportunity to disprove them. Over the years, rural Appalachia has been the victim of a relatively poor economy. Broadly speaking, rural Appalachia’s poor economy is the result of extreme stereotypes, unbalanced economic control, and inadequate politics.

From the time Appalachia was first settle by Europeans until the introduction of large industry, rural Appalachians were content with the self-sustained life they were living. Hunting and farming were the primary source of food intake and families helped each other when times were tough. They did not express any desire to expand their economic opportunity, much less have outsiders do it for them. However, by the late nineteenth century the regions natural resources had become exposed to the rest of the country via new railroads. As resources became increasingly exposed, the influence that Appalachians had on their homeland became increasingly small. The new coal and timber industries immediately took advantage of the region vulnerable economy and workforce. Prior to this point, there were few signs of class structure, but this concept quickly disappeared. The industries took over local economies and created “rigid stratification” of social structure (Duncan 103). As Dr. Cynthia M. Duncan said, “class and power relations evolve and solidify into social structures over time (105). The social distinctions that were introduced by the new industries created a significant problem that is still observable today. Moreover, when the distinctions were introduced they were catalyzed by Duncan’s theory that “when the middle class is small or inconsequential and the poor, lower class is large, the well-to-do separate themselves from the poor and expect differences.” (113). Working conditions, especially in the coalmines, remained extremely dangerous and wages were not rising at any significant rate, if at all. As time continued to progress throughout the early twentieth century the economic control of local industries continued to grow thus causing the rural communities in Appalachia to continue to grow poorer. If caught in the early years, it is possible that Appalachians could have prevented the economic domination of industry. However, the growing poverty throughout the region became more and more difficult to overcome. Dr. Duncan elaborated on this idea by saying, “Poor places are condemned to stagnation or deterioration because they do not have the human or natural resources to sustain economic activity” (105). This idea further proves that it becomes increasingly difficult to break free from the impoverished state because hindering improvement is the nature of poverty itself. In essence, the industries built by outsiders in the late nineteenth century initiated distinct class structure and poverty in Appalachia. The weak, impoverished people and the natural characteristics of poverty then solidified class structure.

It is important to note that people living in the Appalachian region have been experiencing the distaste of outsiders since long before the industrial boom. In the early years, settlers viewed the Appalachian Mountains as a boundary to other parts of the country. Moreover, the settlers that had ventured into the region were seen as backward and ignorant, a stereotype that still persists today. For the most part, the early European settlers stayed away from the mountains and belittled those that inhabited them. However, this was only the beginning of Appalachian stereotypes. The “rigid stratification” of the Appalachia social structure by industry was responsible for fueling the negative views towards Appalachia held by outsiders. The laboring portion of the population created by local industrial development and labeled by social class was a prime target for offensive stereotypes that spread like wild fire. The features of typical, coalmining Appalachians were the basis of stereotypes during the industrial boom and continue to be the basis for stereotypical views today. Since the boom, works such as Robert Schenkkan’s The Kentucky Cycle and John Boorman’s movie Deliverance continue to bash Appalachians with inaccurate stereotypes. In the Foreword section of Back Talk From Appalachia: Confronting Stereotypes, Ronald D. Eller discusses the views expressed in The Kentucky Cycle when he mentions that the book depicts Appalachia as “the place where the American dream had failed” (1). It seems clear that the authors of many of these works do not understand the negative implications that stereotypes have on the region. Of course the inaccurate depictions can be offensive to the people that they are intended to describe, however, hurt feelings barely scratch the surface of the effects. As Cynthia Duncan said in her article titled Myths and Realities of Appalachian Poverty, “An inaccurate depiction of mountain people as lazy and backward handicaps development efforts and gets everyone ‘off the scent’ of the real problems” (25). To further prove the problems of Appalachian stereotypes, it is important to note that stereotypes reduce economic opportunity. This reduction occurs because stereotypes give outside employers and politicians the idea that Appalachians are inferior, thus they have to overcome a hindering reputation in order to be viewed as an equal in the workforce.

The final notable contributor to the poor economy of Appalachia is politics. Politics influence the economy of Appalachia through two primary relationships. First, the relationship between the government and the governed has influence on the legislation in the region. The single most significant government contribution is the welfare state. The federal welfare program that serves all fifty states certainly has it flaws. The single most significant problem with federally funded welfare is that it does not adequately address fixing the problem; it simply provides money for the citizens in need. This issue is very prominent throughout the Appalachian region. Appalachians have come to accept the use of welfare as a social norm. Fortunately, some states have made an effort to repair the flaws. Kentucky for example, enacted the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program. According to this program, “A five year limit was placed on individual’s receipt of welfare and unemployed adults were required to seek training for work” (Egan, 3). Egan then provided the results, “Two and a half years after the law took effect welfare roles had declined by one third” (3). The results in Kentucky show that it is possible to improve the welfare state, however, politicians are failing to do so, thus causing serious problems for the Appalachian economy. The second relationship of politics in Appalachia is between employers and jobs seekers. In Myths and Realities of Appalachian Poverty Duncan described the general feelings of the Appalachians she interviewed regarding the job market. She says, “Politics effects who gets what few jobs there are and immobilizes efforts to improve education and other aspects of community life that are crucial to community development” (25). Moreover, she elaborates on the significance of education saying, “From improved education, improved economic opportunities would follow” (26). She then goes on to a young woman that has had exposure to the politics of the job market, “Politics are too involved in hiring up here. They need to get the politics out and get people in who would concentrate on the good of this place, not on who owns what” (26). Politics play a role in virtually all aspects of life, both inside and outside of Appalachia. However, the role is particularly hindering inside the region.

The fact that Appalachia has a poor economy is not in question, it is obvious to any observer and has clearly depicted in this essay. That said, there are opposing views on just how the economy became reached its impoverished state. Some people, primarily outsiders, argue that native population is solely to blame. The most accurate description of the opposition is that, “While some people might acknowledge that the bad economy and ruthless coal operators had caused underdevelopment, they really believe that the problem persisted because the people had an inferior character” (Duncan, 26). While this opinion is ignorant and has no factual basis, it is hard pin the blame each individual that shares it. It would be more appropriate to blame the media for this misinformation. The writers, artists, and directors that have produced works that depict any one a number of stereotypes are responsible for giving average people that know little about the region false ideas about the people that reside in it. According to Duncan, “Wall Street Journal readers and New York Times readers are going to continue thinking of Appalachia’s problems as problems of character, not economics” (27). It is as true in this case as any other that there is power in numbers. However, in this case, the power and the truth fall on different sides of the debate. Duncan provides evidence for this in saying, “Coal executives have told us that no one works like the American coal miner. Plant managers say the same thing about their workers in Eastern Kentucky” (26). In summary, arguing that the state of Appalachia’s economy is the product of inadequate character is unjustified. There is no evidence that suggest Appalachians are “disproportionately trouble-makers” or that their character in general is inferior (Duncan 27).

It is fair to say the Appalachian region is home to people of all social classes that choose to identify in their own way. It is also fair to say that the laboring class of Appalachians has been on the receiving end of economic abuse since the industrial boom. Moreover, the industrial boom paved the way for new stereotypes and bad politics that further hindered their economic opportunity. The stereotypes that have been in the works for centuries continue to be common views of outsiders and, often times, Appalachians that are less in touch with the region. The politics in the region also continues as the government strives to fix the economic struggles throughout the country and as workers search for employment opportunities. All three of the primary contributors to the regions poor economy originated outside of Appalachia. The industrial boom was the result of outsiders wanting to extract the regions natural resources, stereotypes have always been elaborate versions of outsiders’ ideas, and, politically speaking, the federal government created the flaws in the welfare state. Despite the irrefutable evidence, the misunderstandings of Appalachia and those that reside in it will likely continue for decades to come.