Reminds me of the late 80s when I left Augusta, GA ( thought by the locals as a desirable up and coming place in the New South, with the nicest of people) and moved to Pittsburgh, PA (certified by Rand McNally as 1985's most desirable city in the country according to dozens of their 'quality of life' indicators). But I soured on Pittsburgh and moved to the land of enchantment's biggest, most modern city - Albuquerque, NM - which was thought by some to be the nicest city in the country and a real up and comer in the New Southwest. Guess I soured on Albuquerque too, and moved to the Boston area for a short while before moving to Detroit. I won't bore you with tales of earlier living and activism in London (England), Atlanta, and Honolulu, places that are raved about for their diversity, excitment, etc.
It's possible that I can't adjust anywhere. But also, maybe my wanderlust resulted from finding similar fundamentals wherever I lived: poverty and affluence, hope and despair, wisdom and ignorance. These basics are pretty much the same everywhere. I'd be surprised to find more than a small fraction of a city's residents expressing loudmouth arrogance or being super insulars. For the cases that exist, there are good sociological reasons. Two things kept me in an area for a long time. First, of course, was my job. More importantly, the more I was linked into left activism, the more 'adjusted' I became and the less I was concerned with the social psychology of urban-regional 'citizenship.'
Bob
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20041222/388a1642/attachment.htm>