I have watched every episode of the Paramount Network television series “Yellowstone”, about the fictional ranch owner John Dutton and his Yellowstone ranch in Montana. I dislike every character in this show, to a lessor or greater degree. But I suppose that a good, successful television series would intentionally create characters that people don’t like.
In addition to me not liking the characters, I don’t like the many false impressions of reality that are created on this show. In a recent episode, season 4 episode #3 or #4, the female CEO of a very large real estate development company says to rancher John Dutton’s daughter Beth, that the only thing Montana has to offer any longer is “the fantasy of the West”.
I didn’t like hearing this statement, because right now there is a real-life problem, where Californians are flooding into Arizona, Idaho, and Montana to escape all of the failed policies and planning that ruined California, and these Californians either don’t understand or don’t care that they are ruining Idaho and Montana.
As Soon As Possible, Before It’s Too Late, Californians need to be made to understand that they are ruining Idaho and Montana. A statement such as, “The only thing that Montana has left to offer, is the fantasy of the West”, made on a popular TV show, is giving the false impression and misconception that Montana is lacking anything, that it wants or is in need of development and outside assistance.
It would be stupid, ignorant, uninformed, and non-thinking, for someone to say, “The only thing that Montana has left to offer, is the fantasy of the West.” A week or so after this episode of “Yellowstone” was shown, I couldn’t believe that a Montana rancher identified as “SistersCattleCo” made this TikTok video saying that he agreed with this statement made by the real estate developer:
I couldn’t believe that a Montana rancher would say these things. He said in a couple of different ways, that if it were not for oil and irrigation in the West, it would be mostly uninhabitable. He also said that the eastern U.S. was much more rich with resources in comparison to the West.
Here is my explanation of why none of this is true about Montana, or any state. Prior to World War II, most of the people in the United States lived in small towns that were rural and agriculture based. This was the American way of life that the founding fathers of the United States had envisioned. I want to emphasize that up until 75 years ago, the majority of the people in the U.S. lived in small towns, with a much more modest standard of living. For more than 200 years, people lived like this. There was nothing “uninhabitable” about these rural, agricultural conditions, this is how the majority of people lived.
Whether the head of the household owned the house or share-cropped, worked solely at farming or did outside work, most people had their own vegetable gardens, chickens, pigs, milk cows, horses, mules. These rural people may or may not have had an automobile, tractor, radio, television, telephone, or electricity. They heated their homes using wood, coal, or oil. This was how life was for the average person, whether they lived in Florida, Texas, Arizona, Montana, or Nebraska, up until about 75 years ago. So I think that it is a very stupid thing to say that much of the West would be uninhabitable if it were not for oil and irrigation, people lived their lives without it in the U.S. for more than 200 years.
I believe that the problem is, that “California people” or people who think like “California people”, have the misconception or wrong impression that a state is “uninhabitable”, undesirable, needs development and outside help, if it doesn’t have all of the things that they consider to be necessities because that is what they have been accustomed to their entire lives in California. If you look back at how the average person lived in the U.S. for more than 200 years, whether it was Florida, Texas, Arizona, Montana, or Nebraska, they survived without a Walmart, Target, Starbucks, McDonalds, convenience store, tanning salon, golf course, or airport five minutes away.
Let me explain this another way. North Dakota, where I live, is barren and desolate looking, much more so than Montana. In the early 1900s, immigrants from Ukraine sought the 160-acre Homestead Act land grants in western North Dakota, this land looked good to them. These immigrant farmers grew so much wheat, that the railroad companies built railroad lines through these North Dakota farming areas to load this grain. At the railroad depots and grain bins, towns began to sprout, with general stores, hardware stores, feed stores, schools, barber shops, hotels, doctor offices, saloons, morticians, churches, sheriff, etcetera. Houses were built for these town workers to live in. This had nothing to do with oil or irrigation, yet these barren grasslands with no trees were not “uninhabitable”.
If you look at how people lived in the U.S. for more than its first 200 years, whether Florida, Texas, Arizona, Montana, or Nebraska territories, the majority of people lived in rural, agriculture-based small towns, that had nothing to do with oil or irrigation, and these areas were not uninhabitable. Many people currently living in the West wish to continue to have a rural, agriculture-based, small town lifestyle and standard of living. These people currently living in the West do not need or want development and outside help, this would actually destroy their way-of-life and quality-of-life.
Dickinson58601 