Two instances spring to mind: firstly, the woman who faked being a 9/11 survivor and actually ended up leading an organisation for survivors until someone worked out that she hadn't been in the towers at all - her story is covered in the documentary The Woman Who Wasn't There. Secondly, the many many faked deaths online - but somehow it's now happened multiple times in the world of hand-dyed yarn sellers, where sellers who have got in over their heads with orders have ended up faking their own deaths to get out of having to issue refunds they can't afford to pay back.
I'm developing a truly complicated relationship with the word "authenticity."
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person. I could count the number of folks here who know me IRL on two hands with fingers left over. I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the outside, blatant fraud is obvious. Lying about your personal life, fabricating identities, etc. This is straightforward.
But then there are edges that can be bickered over. I grew up in Western Maryland, IRL. And I have gotten into arguments with people whether I qualify as "Appalachian" because different political regimes in America have defined "Appalachia" as being either inclusive or exclusive of the towns I grew up in. Similarly, at my brother in law's funeral, the preacher asked me if I was a Yankee or a Southerner, and I earnestly answered "I don't know, it depends on where you think the border is, I grew up south of the Mason Dixon line and north of the Potomac in the pro-union end of a border state that wasn't allowed to vote on secession." More recently in life, I realize this probably means I'm a Yankee, because if you don't know and you're in the south, you're probably a Yankee.
For these reasons, I've been prone to quipping "authenticity is a scam." But at some point, it can safely be said that I'd be lying. I'm not from West Virginia, that's the other side of the Potomac River from where I was raised. And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL. It'd be even wronger for me to say I was from England, though if I go back far enough I've got English ancestors (among others.)
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable. This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
And of course, identity based authenticity can fall apart depending on what it is grounded in. No True Scotsman is a thing. "No real person of quality X would ever say Y!"
Look hard enough, for any value X or Y, and I suspect you could find one.
And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
My son lives in a small town near San Diego, CA. that most have never heard of. So in a casual conversation with someone I do not know well, asked about where my children live, I just say in the San Diego area.
My son lives in a small town near San Diego, CA. that most have never heard of. So in a casual conversation with someone I do not know well, asked about where my children live, I just say in the San Diego area.
I grew up in a small town in south-central Idaho. Depending on who I was wanting to impress, I would name the largest town in the area (near T F) or the nearest resort in the area (S V).
Even now I will say I am a Coug(ar) because I live in the town where Washington State University is, but I never went to that school. I have attended classes elsewhere. I could claim to be an Eagle or a Vandal or a Bengal, but I will stay with the Cougs.
Depending on the situation I might mention I was born in the centre of the universe (TM), Toronto for those who do not live there. Usually, I just say I am from working class, Saint John, N.B. I think authenticity is a myth.
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
The idea of where we're from has a number of interpretations in relation to our identity - it might be where we were born, where we grew up, where we live today; or it might wherever it is we call home, where my parents and grandparents call home, the land my people call home.
In the same way that these don't all equally inform our identity, it doesn't make sense to me that they would all relate, to the same extent, to the authenticity of someone's identity.
It sounds like Chicago is where you happen to live today. Regarding someone from Wheaton, I can't understand why you'd say “"Near Chicago" is more honest.” As Leorning Cniht points out, Chicago is a geographic location that most of us have heard of. Wheaton isn't. For many purposes, "Chicago" is just a useful approximation of geographic location that gives most of us as much information as we're after. Saying "Wheaton, which is a suburb of Chicago" might be more specific or accurate or pedantic, but it doesn't strike me as being more honest, or more authentic.
I'm developing a truly complicated relationship with the word "authenticity."
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person.
There's actually quite a lot, for anyone who wanted to comb your posts for information and put the pieces of the jigsaw together.
I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable.
As soon as you start talking about Zionism, you're invoking a sense of from, or home, that few of us can relate to. And though the origins of modern Zionism are down to men like Nathan Birnbaum and especially Theodor Herzl, we'd be on very thin ice if we tried calling its authenticity into question.
This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
If you're using elements of someone else's worldview or sense of self that are not your own, then yes, that is inauthentic. It's not *your* identity. The versions of other people that live in our own heads are invariably inauthentic in some way. Authenticity can't be borrowed - it can only be lived (or inhabited or whatever verb describes it for you).
Aside from all this, I also bear in mind that asking someone where they're from is often a loaded question. In quite a few of the countries where we live, asking someone who doesn't look white European where they're from can just be racist.
In my working days, part of taking a good history included asking about country of origin and ( not infrequently) whether a phone interpreter was needed.
I used to take perverse pleasure in revealing my country of birth ( especially in the years before the White Australia policy was dismantled) and adding that both parents were born in Oz.
Depending on the situation I might mention I was born in the centre of the universe (TM), Toronto for those who do not live there. Usually, I just say I am from working class, Saint John, N.B. I think authenticity is a myth.
I think the mayor of Wallace Idaho would dispute Toronto being the center of the universe. Wallace actually has a certified US Geological Survey Marker proclaiming it to be the center of the Universe. Then too, the Minipuhu, otherwise known as the Nez Pierce, have a sacred ground they have declared the Center of the Universe near Kamiah Idaho. I tend to believe the Minipuhu claim.
Coming in from a slightly different angle, I have noticed that since my partner died (who was a very private person and not visible on social media at all), I've felt free to share much more of my whereabouts and personal pics on social media in the last year. And coming from a mixed-race family in southern Africa without that being 'visible' so to speak, I tend not to go into identity politics or queer affinities. Political posting is a mine field: to post on support for Gaza or ask others to sign petitions or protests about ICE, for example or crises in Sudan, is so loaded and alienating on a personal Facebook page that I prefer not to go there.
Does this mean that what is there is 'inauthentic'? Antagonism or disagreement is so polarised on most sites now and I would rather not go there.
If I glance through my Instagram posts I can see how much is withheld simply because I'm posting to strangers as well as friends and former work colleagues, people who only know me from forums online or book launches. I noticed that without ever reflecting on it, I shared nothing about spirituality or church involvement. I assume this was to sidestep idiotic or simplistic questions about God or denominations but now I mention theologians I'm reading or comment on church architecture, faith seminars etc. The responses I get are the best guide to what I choose to keep sharing...
Have also noted that social media has become both more polarised and polarising.
I don’t post much personal stuff as it is not to be shared with random strangers & I’ve encountered some eye-popping stuff (even on this Xtian website) and in response to some of my posts.
@Sojourner, yes, but there's a clear distinction between what we wouldn't tell strangers or distant acquaintances about ourselves, our health, our bank balance or family conflicts and what we share as common knowledge in everyday life, isn't there?
Issues around choices and disclosure ('faking it' or 'inauthenticity' aren't terms I'd use) are worth thinking about whenever we look for community or support or conversation or debate online because the boundaries keep shifting. I don't share anything personal about others without their permission. In order to be understood and 'known' I do share more online than in daily life at times. Without the relative safety of Epiphanies I might not have ventured to share as much about Zimbabwe or identity issues.
You are quite right, ML , and I do get the difference.
My problem is that “lived experience” on this board can be narrowly interpreted. I am seldom inclined to post on this board for that very reason.
Problem can be that a revelation by a poster can be construed by a moderator as being not in the spirit of the board ( despite the post being made in good faith) and can cause the poster to leave. (without making a public fuss , I might add)
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
I'm from Essex, in case you couldn't tell.
Though in my part of it, it was more likely to be green wellies in a tractor.
In the halcyon days of yore, Ausmates had lots of Meets, so we knew who folk were in RL™ And it didn't take much digging, or more often happenstance, to twig who we *really* were, that is who we were behind the Meet veneer. One common affliction of clergypersons was/is that we suffer from imposter syndrome. It is most refreshing, liberating even, to learn that it is a common affliction.
Now that cohort of mid 2000s know each other well enough that transcontinental and cross-Ditch VisageVolume correspondence has no need of pretence, we know *who* we are.
Southern Africa and some other places don't have the critical mass of Shipmates to organise Meets, heck, Aus/NZ doesn't these days for one reason or another (over-modding in the past should admit to some of the blame, but that might be expecting too much). So we're lucky that many of us are still in touch with present or old Shipmates who are anything but anonymous or catfishers.
It was tangential to the thread, made in passing and hardly warranted Administrative intervention. I know; I shouldn't wasted my time and posted this in The Styx.
quote="Caissa;c-767975"]It was tangential to the thread, made in passing and hardly warranted Administrative intervention. I know; I shouldn't wasted my time and posted this in The Styx.[/quote]
I used to worry a lot more when I was younger about what was truly me and what was my lived experience, and what it counted for. Now I tend to be very open about a lot of things and yet I feel that I don't share anything but the surface.
If I told you where I live, what my job is, what my parents do, where they are, how many kids I have and how old, and who my spouse is and what he does, is that a lot or nothing? It tells you details that could imply how rich/poor I am and my social class. If you know that I have kids and how old they are, you know something about how old I am and how much time I do or don't (if adult) spend on them. And yet none of that seems to be the real me.
I could tell you which identity groups I belong to and which of those matter to me. But would you care? Probably not and no reason you should.
If I tell you that I love words, and work with them in my job and apparently in my free time when I babble at people on SoF, that feels more importantly about me. Or I could tell you that I enjoy open world video games and think and read a lot about politics and what is going on in the world. Those details would tell a person much more about whether they'd like to spend an hour chatting with me probably. Of course that's still surface level. Do I help my neighbor when they need it? Am I really just a quiet wallflower in person? Who we are is made of a million things and yet nothing.
So I'm not sure how much we can either share a lot of ourselves online or hide it. I think it's all about knowing a person over time. I've certainly had shipmates who appeared on the news and did things that surprised me. Did I really know them? A part of them at least.
[I am not going to take this thread farther off topic, but if anyone starts a thread about saying one lives in a big city versus near it, I would participate.]
I think borders are endlessly entertaining and spent my childhood in a small middle of nowhere and have lived my adulthood in a great big somewhere, so geographic identity always gives me lots of feelings. Pardon me if I'm belaboring a point.
It's very convenient when you're from a state like Michigan or West Virginia that resembles a hand, so you can just hold up your hand and point to roughly where in the state you're from.
I think there's also a racial angle to Chicago, with the history of "white flight," there's a bitterness from people who've chosen to live in a struggle. You see people who were raised in a place that ran away from the struggle claiming that they're still in it. Chicago has a reputation (not entirely fair) of being poor, black, and violent and for people from white, safe suburbia to go around saying "I'm from Chicago" is a little uncomfortable. You're not paying into our taxes, you're not supporting our public schools, you live in communities designed to leech money away from the city at our expense and you want to say you're from here?
Some of us urbanites will cast a little shade at that. And folks who are savvy will appreciate the nuance and be respectful. We're nice, we don't' mean harm. It's a prickly conversation. And it's also known that folks up in Wisconsin often categorically sneer at Chicagoans because of cultural differences, small town/big city competition, football....I dunno, not from here but I've heard running jokes and was warned to be discreet last time I visited Kenosha with a friend, even if folks were nice. It is the midwest. Check out some Charlie Berens videos if you want a caricature that's a bit realistic. He's funny.
"From near Chicago," "From the Chicago area," etc. These are a lot nicer. "Chicagoland" is the common expression, and a lot of cities have some version of "The Greater Metro area." That's just fine! No shade, we're happy. We got lots of suburbs and they're lovely places in their own rights. Arlington Heights can have The Bears if they really want them, far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, I think I get similar feelings about trying to identify as "hillbilly" since I grew up in the poor, rural end of the very wealthy state of Maryland, but (occasional twang notwithstanding) I'm not *really* from hillbilly country. But I'm close enough to reckon it and I have friends & family who are legitimately of that culture. And I respect it.
It's an experience living close enough to a line to know not to cross it, or to know when and where it feels safe and when and where it isn't.
And to most of y'all, I don't know if anyone here is even from West Virginia to understand that. But I definitely got chewed out by at least one person I respect on facebook, discussing some amateur anthropologist she'd posted. I thought I was right in some respects, but she did have a point about the cultural boundaries, enough that I backed down from the conversation. Maryland is a big rich state and southern West Virginia is desperately poor coal country. These are very different parts of Appalachia.
In terms of my growing up, I say I'm from Maryland near West Virginia, I'm not from West Virginia. It's a lot more accurate than saying I'm from Baltimore or DC, culturally, since that's what most folks think when they hear "Maryland." But it also pays respect to the fact that western Maryland, while it more closely resembles West Virginia - especially if you're a certain distance away - is indeed not the same thing as West Virginia and some proud West-by-God-Virginians may very enthusiastically desire to explain that fact to you if you seem to be speaking to their culture without license.
Of course, living on an edge makes the notion of "authenticity" rather tricky, which explains why I've spent most of my life feeling like a walking identity crisis, doubly so because I didn't really fit in where I grew up. I don't really fit in here either, but "not fitting in" is easier as an adult in a big city than as a child in a small town.
Comments
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person. I could count the number of folks here who know me IRL on two hands with fingers left over. I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the outside, blatant fraud is obvious. Lying about your personal life, fabricating identities, etc. This is straightforward.
But then there are edges that can be bickered over. I grew up in Western Maryland, IRL. And I have gotten into arguments with people whether I qualify as "Appalachian" because different political regimes in America have defined "Appalachia" as being either inclusive or exclusive of the towns I grew up in. Similarly, at my brother in law's funeral, the preacher asked me if I was a Yankee or a Southerner, and I earnestly answered "I don't know, it depends on where you think the border is, I grew up south of the Mason Dixon line and north of the Potomac in the pro-union end of a border state that wasn't allowed to vote on secession." More recently in life, I realize this probably means I'm a Yankee, because if you don't know and you're in the south, you're probably a Yankee.
For these reasons, I've been prone to quipping "authenticity is a scam." But at some point, it can safely be said that I'd be lying. I'm not from West Virginia, that's the other side of the Potomac River from where I was raised. And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL. It'd be even wronger for me to say I was from England, though if I go back far enough I've got English ancestors (among others.)
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable. This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
And of course, identity based authenticity can fall apart depending on what it is grounded in. No True Scotsman is a thing. "No real person of quality X would ever say Y!"
Look hard enough, for any value X or Y, and I suspect you could find one.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
I grew up in a small town in south-central Idaho. Depending on who I was wanting to impress, I would name the largest town in the area (near T F) or the nearest resort in the area (S V).
Even now I will say I am a Coug(ar) because I live in the town where Washington State University is, but I never went to that school. I have attended classes elsewhere. I could claim to be an Eagle or a Vandal or a Bengal, but I will stay with the Cougs.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
In the same way that these don't all equally inform our identity, it doesn't make sense to me that they would all relate, to the same extent, to the authenticity of someone's identity.
It sounds like Chicago is where you happen to live today. Regarding someone from Wheaton, I can't understand why you'd say “"Near Chicago" is more honest.” As Leorning Cniht points out, Chicago is a geographic location that most of us have heard of. Wheaton isn't. For many purposes, "Chicago" is just a useful approximation of geographic location that gives most of us as much information as we're after. Saying "Wheaton, which is a suburb of Chicago" might be more specific or accurate or pedantic, but it doesn't strike me as being more honest, or more authentic.
There's actually quite a lot, for anyone who wanted to comb your posts for information and put the pieces of the jigsaw together.
As soon as you start talking about Zionism, you're invoking a sense of from, or home, that few of us can relate to. And though the origins of modern Zionism are down to men like Nathan Birnbaum and especially Theodor Herzl, we'd be on very thin ice if we tried calling its authenticity into question.
If you're using elements of someone else's worldview or sense of self that are not your own, then yes, that is inauthentic. It's not *your* identity. The versions of other people that live in our own heads are invariably inauthentic in some way. Authenticity can't be borrowed - it can only be lived (or inhabited or whatever verb describes it for you).
Aside from all this, I also bear in mind that asking someone where they're from is often a loaded question. In quite a few of the countries where we live, asking someone who doesn't look white European where they're from can just be racist.
In my working days, part of taking a good history included asking about country of origin and ( not infrequently) whether a phone interpreter was needed.
I used to take perverse pleasure in revealing my country of birth ( especially in the years before the White Australia policy was dismantled) and adding that both parents were born in Oz.
I think the mayor of Wallace Idaho would dispute Toronto being the center of the universe. Wallace actually has a certified US Geological Survey Marker proclaiming it to be the center of the Universe. Then too, the Minipuhu, otherwise known as the Nez Pierce, have a sacred ground they have declared the Center of the Universe near Kamiah Idaho. I tend to believe the Minipuhu claim.
Does this mean that what is there is 'inauthentic'? Antagonism or disagreement is so polarised on most sites now and I would rather not go there.
If I glance through my Instagram posts I can see how much is withheld simply because I'm posting to strangers as well as friends and former work colleagues, people who only know me from forums online or book launches. I noticed that without ever reflecting on it, I shared nothing about spirituality or church involvement. I assume this was to sidestep idiotic or simplistic questions about God or denominations but now I mention theologians I'm reading or comment on church architecture, faith seminars etc. The responses I get are the best guide to what I choose to keep sharing...
I don’t post much personal stuff as it is not to be shared with random strangers & I’ve encountered some eye-popping stuff (even on this Xtian website) and in response to some of my posts.
Issues around choices and disclosure ('faking it' or 'inauthenticity' aren't terms I'd use) are worth thinking about whenever we look for community or support or conversation or debate online because the boundaries keep shifting. I don't share anything personal about others without their permission. In order to be understood and 'known' I do share more online than in daily life at times. Without the relative safety of Epiphanies I might not have ventured to share as much about Zimbabwe or identity issues.
My problem is that “lived experience” on this board can be narrowly interpreted. I am seldom inclined to post on this board for that very reason.
Problem can be that a revelation by a poster can be construed by a moderator as being not in the spirit of the board ( despite the post being made in good faith) and can cause the poster to leave. (without making a public fuss , I might add)
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
I'm from Essex, in case you couldn't tell.
Though in my part of it, it was more likely to be green wellies in a tractor.
Now that cohort of mid 2000s know each other well enough that transcontinental and cross-Ditch VisageVolume correspondence has no need of pretence, we know *who* we are.
Southern Africa and some other places don't have the critical mass of Shipmates to organise Meets, heck, Aus/NZ doesn't these days for one reason or another (over-modding in the past should admit to some of the blame, but that might be expecting too much). So we're lucky that many of us are still in touch with present or old Shipmates who are anything but anonymous or catfishers.
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
(ETA redacted post on wrong forum, DT)
@Caissa and this also would go in Styx.
Doublethink, Admin
If I told you where I live, what my job is, what my parents do, where they are, how many kids I have and how old, and who my spouse is and what he does, is that a lot or nothing? It tells you details that could imply how rich/poor I am and my social class. If you know that I have kids and how old they are, you know something about how old I am and how much time I do or don't (if adult) spend on them. And yet none of that seems to be the real me.
I could tell you which identity groups I belong to and which of those matter to me. But would you care? Probably not and no reason you should.
If I tell you that I love words, and work with them in my job and apparently in my free time when I babble at people on SoF, that feels more importantly about me. Or I could tell you that I enjoy open world video games and think and read a lot about politics and what is going on in the world. Those details would tell a person much more about whether they'd like to spend an hour chatting with me probably. Of course that's still surface level. Do I help my neighbor when they need it? Am I really just a quiet wallflower in person? Who we are is made of a million things and yet nothing.
So I'm not sure how much we can either share a lot of ourselves online or hide it. I think it's all about knowing a person over time. I've certainly had shipmates who appeared on the news and did things that surprised me. Did I really know them? A part of them at least.
[I am not going to take this thread farther off topic, but if anyone starts a thread about saying one lives in a big city versus near it, I would participate.]
It's very convenient when you're from a state like Michigan or West Virginia that resembles a hand, so you can just hold up your hand and point to roughly where in the state you're from.
I think there's also a racial angle to Chicago, with the history of "white flight," there's a bitterness from people who've chosen to live in a struggle. You see people who were raised in a place that ran away from the struggle claiming that they're still in it. Chicago has a reputation (not entirely fair) of being poor, black, and violent and for people from white, safe suburbia to go around saying "I'm from Chicago" is a little uncomfortable. You're not paying into our taxes, you're not supporting our public schools, you live in communities designed to leech money away from the city at our expense and you want to say you're from here?
Some of us urbanites will cast a little shade at that. And folks who are savvy will appreciate the nuance and be respectful. We're nice, we don't' mean harm. It's a prickly conversation. And it's also known that folks up in Wisconsin often categorically sneer at Chicagoans because of cultural differences, small town/big city competition, football....I dunno, not from here but I've heard running jokes and was warned to be discreet last time I visited Kenosha with a friend, even if folks were nice. It is the midwest. Check out some Charlie Berens videos if you want a caricature that's a bit realistic. He's funny.
"From near Chicago," "From the Chicago area," etc. These are a lot nicer. "Chicagoland" is the common expression, and a lot of cities have some version of "The Greater Metro area." That's just fine! No shade, we're happy. We got lots of suburbs and they're lovely places in their own rights. Arlington Heights can have The Bears if they really want them, far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, I think I get similar feelings about trying to identify as "hillbilly" since I grew up in the poor, rural end of the very wealthy state of Maryland, but (occasional twang notwithstanding) I'm not *really* from hillbilly country. But I'm close enough to reckon it and I have friends & family who are legitimately of that culture. And I respect it.
It's an experience living close enough to a line to know not to cross it, or to know when and where it feels safe and when and where it isn't.
And to most of y'all, I don't know if anyone here is even from West Virginia to understand that. But I definitely got chewed out by at least one person I respect on facebook, discussing some amateur anthropologist she'd posted. I thought I was right in some respects, but she did have a point about the cultural boundaries, enough that I backed down from the conversation. Maryland is a big rich state and southern West Virginia is desperately poor coal country. These are very different parts of Appalachia.
In terms of my growing up, I say I'm from Maryland near West Virginia, I'm not from West Virginia. It's a lot more accurate than saying I'm from Baltimore or DC, culturally, since that's what most folks think when they hear "Maryland." But it also pays respect to the fact that western Maryland, while it more closely resembles West Virginia - especially if you're a certain distance away - is indeed not the same thing as West Virginia and some proud West-by-God-Virginians may very enthusiastically desire to explain that fact to you if you seem to be speaking to their culture without license.
Of course, living on an edge makes the notion of "authenticity" rather tricky, which explains why I've spent most of my life feeling like a walking identity crisis, doubly so because I didn't really fit in where I grew up. I don't really fit in here either, but "not fitting in" is easier as an adult in a big city than as a child in a small town.