I turned on PBS this morning (probably the most-watched of the 7 cable-free channels I have) and there was a program on about a community in Alabama that used to have a large plantation with slaves. After the slaves were freed, many of them stayed in the area and now many of their descendants still live there– as attested to by the last name the freed slaves had been given.
So I wondered why anyone would want to stay in a place where their family had previously been enslaved. Wouldn’t that be a place with horrible memories and reminders? Wouldn’t a new place mark a fresh start? Or would leaving the community simply prompt people to forget about their history and heritage?
And someone at work yesterday was wondering outloud why people often rebuild their home in the same place after it has been destroyed by a natural disaster like a hurricane, an earthquake, or a mudslide. She suggested that people were either idiots or did not believe that another natural disaster would happen– I think she was looking for a quick and easy answer that justified her opinion about this course of action.
*****
When it comes right down to it, the reason for staying must be strongly rooted in the emotional definition of home– family, friends, familiar places, memories– both pleasant and unpleasant memories are a strong magnet for place. Sense of self can be very connected to place.
Practical considerations such as employment and money also must play a part, but I think that the overriding force is emotional attachment. We have no control over the circumstances that bring us into the world, but we immediately start making connections to our surroundings and our people. I think that people have an intelligent predisposition for logic and reason, but it takes a lot of time to develop these skills. Emotion is sort of tangled at our roots.
This might help explain why my logical, reasonable parents made the decision last year to “ride out” the hurricane that hit near them, rather than evacuate as many did and as authorities were urging. The decision had to be made before the outcome of the action could really be estimated very well. I was appalled by this decision when they made it, but now I understand something about them that I didn’t understand before and I feel like I know them a little better.
Now the reasons they gave to explain their actions were very logical. My parents are very logical and very reasonable people. But it would have been much more logical and reasonable to get the hell away from the projected landfall. So sometimes the reasons people give as explanations are not what is really driving them deep down. Maybe they just can’t always identify, or maybe they don’t want to admit, the emotional drive.