On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Faith Freewoman wrote:
> It interests me to notice how many roadblocks our society as it's
> presently constructed, especially IMHO in the suburbs, puts up roadblocks
> to conscious, sustainable living. Every move *I* make, anyway, is a
> tradeoff ...if I want to live somewhere we can afford on $25,000 a year
for our
> family, we either live in a place like this, or we move 'way out in the
> stix, and then my daughter's education will go to pot.
>
> I find myself, and my thinking, going in very unproductive circles about
> all this; and when you top it with the fact that I find stereotyping
> extremely offensive, especially when I'm lumped in the stereotype...
>
Well, Faith, I'm not sure whether your idea of "the stix" is a
stereotype, or just based on some assumptions with which I disagree. Is
it generally true that in the U.S. students living in rural areas are
receiving substandard education? "Go to pot" in what sense? Are there
compensating factors for whatever element you see as being inferior to urban
education?
I am speaking as someone who has deliberately chosen to live in a rural
area which I'm sure would qualify as "the stix" in your mind. I chose
this after having experienced both urban and rural education as a child.
My rural education took place in the very centre of Jamaica (the island,
not N.Y.) where my parents were CUSO volunteers (equivalent, at that
time, to the U.S. Peace Corps). I can tell you quite candidly that the
education I received there was stimulating and transformative in a way I
had never experienced in (urban) Montreal!
I fully agree with all your comments about the trade-offs involved in
trying to balance out the elements of a sustainable lifestyle. I, too,
face them every day. But to choose a rural life is not necessarily to
trade off your child's education. Who knows, it might even improve it!
Sue Adams
Coady International Institute
+++ Whether elephants make war or love,
it is the grass that suffers.
(Swahili proverb)
