Southern Indiana is another beautiful part of the state. It's mostly rolling hills with lush green forests and farms.
Having grown up in that area of the Midwest, I largely agree with the author's categorization, except that "people on their way to somewhere better who got tired and decided this was good enough" describes a LOT of the midwest, not just Indiana. Significant chunks of Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri, most of Iowa/Kansas/Nebraska, etc.
If you read the history of westward expansion, "got tired and decided this was good enough" is literally true for how much of the area got initially settled (by white people)
Earth has a lot of nice places. The flatness of Indiana can be calming and beautiful. But if you're driving on main roads, it's not very exciting, and it's not the kind of exciting people will fly across the world to see. And that was the point in the article.
Then again, our state motto did used to be "Crossroads of America", so I guess that's kind of fair. These days it's the more aspirational "More to Discover".
The Midwest is many things, but for quite a lot of it, "where anyone really wanted to get stuck" is not one of them.
I'm not saying Indiana on the whole isn't flat. When I was growing up, their ad campaign was literally "there's more than corn in Indiana". I'm just saying, he couldn't have picked a worse map location to make the point with.
The whole stretch though from Chicago up to Traverse City is basically where Chicago vacations.
Illegitimis non carborundum?
Carbondale is slightly better, but I think it’s a notorious party school for very good reasons. Small town Midwest has a saying that “there’s nothing to do here except drink, fuck, and knock over mailboxes”. Most Iowa this is especially true, but Carbondale also gave me that vibe. Also that’s a fucking long drive. St Louis too. Nobody appreciates that Illinois is half as tall as California (not that anyone appreciates how long a trip up and down CA is either).
Spend some time not just driving through them, and one may be surprised to find plenty of diverse and interesting people that live full lives with rich family and social bonds, reasonably priced housing, ample winter outdoor activities (a lot of people actually want snow because it's beautiful and you can do fun things with it) and plenty of nearby nature and recreation opportunities, which I would contrast less unfavorably than the zeitgeist against the crowded, expensive vagrant culture that tends to dominate the more popular places on earth.
Calling some states good states and others not is just a silly thing to do anyway.
However, Michael Jackson is from there. So there’s that.
There is a lot to shit on Indiana for but its natural beauty isn't one of them.
I'd say the caves in that region of the state are interesting, but options like Mammoth Cave are not that far away in KY (and they have better hills too).
Indiana and other midwestern states have some awesome nature, but it's basically taken for granted by people from there because you grow up having your family show you all those places. Imagine if aliens showed up to a megacity, and declared there was no food anywhere -- a local would show them places called "restaurants" that actually have more varied and competitive tasty foods than about any farmland areas you'd find, but the aliens would think there's food only in the farmlands and declare the city worthless for finding something to eat.
If you drive out west, you don't even have to look for them; astounding nature is evereywhere.
End result is people from midwestern states appreciate the beauty of their state, but people who haven't lived there for years generally don't. Even after leaving the midwest, I have a high appreciation for the natural landscape, but that's only because I know where to go when I get there.
I thought the Indiana aside was odd as an objective assessment, but it worked well as a flavorful bit of travel writing to help me understand the perspective of the visitor to Greenland.
Vs. say some parts Cleveland, where I've been robbed at gunpoint the second my vehicle broke down and people noticed I'm not from around there.
I've traveled a lot through the area. I was throughout Ohio earlier this year, spent two weeks in Illinois last year, etc.
> However, Michael Jackson is from there.
There are no coincidences.
This is only true of the area around the airport. Even his pictures further into the article show how misleading this description is. I was actually very surprised how little snow/ice there was. Now when I think of Greenland, I think of something similar to [1].
Of course, in the winter, it's a completely different story (I was there in July). But he was there during the warm period as well (as is obvious from his photos).
> The city itself sits in a landscape so dramatically inhospitable it makes the surface of Mars look cozy.
If you look at a map, you will notice that Nuuk is at the same latitude as Reykjavik. There's a common meme about Iceland being green and Greenland being icy, and that's definitely true if you compare inland or northern Greenland with Iceland during summer (during winter, both are icy and dark), but hiking around Nuuk is a very "green" experience. Yes, there's a ton of mosquitoes, but nature itself is very inviting. I did not get any of the "inhospitable" vibes he mentions.
> But again even riding the bus around it is impossible to escape the feeling that this is a fundamentally hostile to human life place. The sun is bright and during the summer its pretty hot, with my skin feeling like it was starting the burn pretty much the second it was exposed to the light. It's hard to even dress for, with layers of sunscreen, bug spray and then something warm on top if you suddenly got cold.
This whole section is just overblown BS.
All in all, I enjoyed it a lot. Compared to Iceland, it's definitely a lot less "user friendly" and you need to prepare better, but I have never been to a place that is less affected by humans, and in our age, that is something worth experiencing.
[1] https://truewindhealingtravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08...
> This is only true of the area around the airport. Even his pictures further into the article show how misleading this description is.
At least as far as trees go, Greenland is reasonably famously lacking in trees (if you are the kind of person who cares about such things). All chopped down by the Vikings and only now are a few sections of forest being regrown. Iceland is basically the same.
A few links:
- https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/GRL/. "In 2020, Greenland had 0.00 ha of natural forest"
- https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/14notoe/the_prog...
Different strokes I suppose :)
The last night there I had dinner at one of the professors' houses in a very nice neighborhood that was absolutely lovely, and in general I thought it was a solid middle class place to live. If it was plopped in the middle of Silicon Valley it would be considered one of the more bucolic and put together cities in the area. And unlike Greenland, the weather is quite good for much of the year and there are trees.
My personal experience does not match the image of tired, doomed NPCs living in a wasteland that it's painted as in this blog post and in these comments.
Ann Arbor is a nice town. Bloomington sounds like a nice town. The vast majority of Indiana and Michigan are sparsely populated and full of people who distrust anyone not like them and are not interested in broadening their experiences.
"Got tired and decided this is good enough" is literally true - small town midwest America is full of the kind of people who don't want to travel or experience new things because they're content in their house with their hobby and their 6 friends and trying to do something like understand how to ride a bus is terrifying.
This is not a stereotype. I know tons of these people. I got out of the midwest to get away from them.
I'll side with the "Indiana ain't bad" crowd on this.
Wasn't it just that it wasn't yet settled, so you could settle there and claim some land? That implies that Indiana or anywhere else on the way would have been at least as desirable, but someone else got there first.
And even before Gary Cooper there were people using it for Gerald (spear power), Gerard (spear hard/brave), and (old) Gerbert (spear bright). It is a cousin to, but believed not historically derived from, Garrett/Garrod. It is unclear whether German/Germain derive from this root or not. It is usually unrelated to Jared (which is usually a Hebrew name, but does have spelling variants that overlap Garrod).
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6196019,-87.2547571,3a,75y,3...
I would argue that this could also be said to people (mainly from more rural parts of the US) who like to disparage large cities. If we're going to lecture city dwellers about how they talk about places like Indiana, maybe it's worth encouraging Hoosiers to go east or west and experience the vibrant neighborhoods and offerings of large coastal cities rather than just assuming they're cesspools of crime and poverty just because they heard a politician say places like Portland, Oregon, are "war ravaged"
"Too tired" is an apt descriptor, though. "Too Poor" or not having opportunities is generally good too, but you likely wouldn't see all of that while driving through. Most people just live there because they were born there and their lives are there. "why would you move here??" isn't an unusual question.
If your experience is different, it may simply be the product of cost pressures. It's easier to have a simple life that consists of smoking weed and playing video games with your friends if you don't have to figure out how to afford an expensive house. And something tells me people in Indiana, even their dullards, could figure out how to ride a bus if they really needed to.
I actually stopped to stretch my legs and bag another national park at the Indiana Dunes National Park last Friday on my way back to Michigan from Wisconsin. Maybe AI was in a sour mood due to my poor decision to drive through Chicago from 3 to 6pm on a Friday, but I wasn't that impressed - Holland, Muskegon, Hoffmaster, Silver Lake, or Ludington State Parks up the Michigan coastline are all superior.
It only looks fantastic though a Chicagoan or Hoosier perspective because the rest of the area is a rust belt.
I think the people who have found their "good enough" place to live have more down-to-earth personalities.
And people living in "the best place to live" places or "all the people who do X should live here" places have different personalities (not always good).
