Javascript Menu by Jim's Eclectic World: Yellowstone and class

Welcome to
Magic of Yellowstone
A little bit of

Jim's Eclectic World

My Photo
Name: Jim Macdonald
Location: Bozeman, MT, United States

Hi, my name is Jim Macdonald, and I have an odd assortment of interests. In no particular order, I love Yellowstone, I am an anti-authoritarian activist and organizer who just moved from Washington, DC to Bozeman, and I have a background in philosophy, having taught at the college level. My blog has a lot more links to my writing and my other Web sites. In Jim's Eclectic World, I try to give a holistic view of my many interests. Often, all three passions show themselves interweaving in the very same blog. Anyhow, I think it's a little different. But, that's me. I'm not so much out there, but taken together, I'm a little unusual.

  • Christian Philosopher Activist
  • (or other places to find my writings from the mundane to the supermundane)
  • The Magic of Yellowstone
  • Jim Macdonald's Philosophy Page
  • A sample of Jim's writings
  • Buffalo Allies of Bozeman
  • Powered by Blogger

    Subscribe to
    Posts [Atom]

    Wednesday, January 03, 2007

    Yellowstone and class

    Yellowstone and class
    by Jim Macdonald

    The irony of working five summers in Yellowstone National Park was in being paid to spend months in paradise whereas others much wealthier than me spent a small fortune to spend very little time. If you are poor and single, it has never been particularly hard to gain access into places like Yellowstone. However, poor and single people tended to be young, college-aged white people. These days, they tend to be foreign students from Europe, Asia, and South America who rumor has it are used as tax right offs for the concessionaires who hire them. So, while it was ironic that I could make money to live in Yellowstone as a relatively poor boy, at the same time I was hardly representative of the lower class.

    In a place of spectacular grandeur, it may be hard to notice the interesting ways class hierarchy exists in Yellowstone. Where people come for a natural wilderness experience, in fact, the experience is much more like being on the various levels of the Titanic, with first, second, and third class passengers. Protection of Yellowstone is among other things, protection of a class system; however, that hardly squares with our values of what Yellowstone is supposed to be.

    Yellowstone National Park was established on March 1, 1872, “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people,” but in fact it was set up for the Northern Pacific Railroad so that it might profit from those who would enjoy it. Not only did the Northern Pacific Railroad most likely first suggest the idea of Yellowstone as a national park, but also it dominated the concessions in Yellowstone for the first 50 years of Yellowstone’s existence. The railroad helped finance the great hotels of Yellowstone, including the Old Faithful Inn and the Lake Hotel, in the hopes that wealthy travelers might ride the Northern Pacific to Gardiner, MT, and then take the railroad-dominated concession’s stagecoaches on a grand tour of the park while staying at its luxurious hotels. Yellowstone was created for the benefit and enjoyment of rich people for the profit of other wealthy people.

    Yet, in all eras of the park, labor was needed to staff the hotels, maintain the roads, and work in the park. These staff took on the derogatory name “Savages,” and these were the lucky few poor and working class who managed to make money for long stretches while the wealthy poured out their pockets to the concessions. Of course, the actual Indians, long called “savages” by Euroamericans, who had lived or migrated through Yellowstone, had been kicked out. However, who were these new “Savages”? To what extent were they a working class, or to what extent were they like the Yellowstone workers of today? Were they foreign workers like much of today’s force? Were they college-aged students much like the recently deceased Gerald Ford, who served as a seasonal ranger in 1936? How did this change over time? And, if these people were a poorer working class, what made it possible for them to work seasons in Yellowstone? Was it the fortunate experience it was for me?

    Yellowstone opened to the automobile in 1915, and with it came a sea change in the Yellowstone tourist. Now, Yellowstone was accessible to a large American middle class, at least an upper middle class who could afford to travel and a somewhat poorer middle class who lived closer to Yellowstone. Many of them also chose to camp rather than stay in the lush hotels. With this growing new set of people, a whole new class of people joined the rich and the class of working poor in Yellowstone.

    In many respects, Yellowstone has not changed a whole lot since then. You still have large hotels for the rich, and winter is a special fiefdom for rich travelers. There are cabins and lodges for those with slightly less. Others travel by RV or sleep in tents. And, you still have an employee class who spends a season in Yellowstone. While Indians have an increasingly growing say in Yellowstone, they still are on the fringes of Yellowstone society. At least, they are showing up in the history books again.

    Most years, 3 – 4 million people visit Yellowstone National Park, paying for the gasoline, wear and tear on vehicles, entrance fees, souvenirs, food, fishing licenses, and lodging. They visit places run mostly by a few major concessions operated by Xanterra and/or Delaware North, or by the National Park Service itself, or the bookstores of the Yellowstone Association. Yellowstone began as a corporate and government venture; little has changed. The relative monopoly on access, management, and services lends itself very well to a stratified society, a feudal fiefdom in the woods.

    On the other hand, what a beautiful woods in which to work as a serf! When I worked in Yellowstone during the mid-1990s, our room and board was provided by the concessionaire, which in my case was Hamilton Stores (now operated by Delaware North as the Yellowstone General Stores), for $8.50 a day. We were paid minimum wage, though on each successive year we received a five cent an hour raise, and we worked anywhere from 35 to 37.5 hours per week on split shifts, never receiving overtime. If you were lucky enough to wait tables, you could receive tips as well, which would essentially double the wages. It was not a terrible deal, to live and eat for $260 a month. Yet, only a specific type of person could afford to work in Yellowstone. Either you were retired and supplementing your income, or you were young, or you made a living migrating from tourist area to tourist area working seasonally. Very few people worked in Yellowstone year round because there are very few year round jobs within the park.

    The point is that Yellowstone may have people from every class, but the working class in Yellowstone is a special working class. Most poor never see a place like Yellowstone and have no opportunity to do so. Most poor have families cannot afford the poor job security that comes with seasonal work, and many could not afford the journey to Yellowstone to get to the job. Notice that I do not even suggest that most poor could possibly consider a vacation to Yellowstone!

    The other point is that benefit and enjoyment in Yellowstone is specific to the class to which one belongs. While the working poor in Yellowstone in some respects have it best because they can spend a long time in Yellowstone, I also do not know of too many who have ever stayed in the Old Faithful Inn, either!

    Protection of Yellowstone in some respect seems to mean protection of the system in place as it is managed along class lines. While there is no doubt that protection is on the one hand about protecting landmarks, geological features, and wildlife (albeit imperfectly due to the conflicts that arise in creating so many visitor services), it is on the other also about protecting access to those landmarks, geological features, and wildlife. In essence, Yellowstone is a political boundary with legal and economic boundaries within. If you destroy the boundaries, you also threaten the class ecosystem in Yellowstone.

    For instance, consider this. Can workers create their own economic cooperative in Yellowstone or essentially run the concession? In theory, it would be possible, but they would have to win the concession lease from the National Park Service in a competitive bidding that is rigged against anyone that is not in the game. Could workers organize labor unions? I do not even know the answer to that question; I fail to see why they couldn’t. Yet, if they did, what good is a union of seasonal employees who change from year to year? The middle class has exerted its influence by paying membership into large non-governmental organizations (NGOs), either recreational associations or environmental organizations, in order to assert their influence over park policy. In truth, they fund another upper class to make decisions for them, but such inconsistency has always been a hallmark of middle class organizing, a class with too much at stake within the system to ruffle too many feathers.

    Protection of Yellowstone is a protection of class inequality. That does not bother that many Americans, but perhaps it should. Why is a place like Yellowstone valuable? That is a huge question, but one thing that there has been a general consensus on is that it is valuable for its unique features and wildlife. Yellowstone is a special place ostensibly because we value things that normally in the history of the world have been given a fourth class place in the world. Yellowstone is set up as an exception to that hierarchy. We lift up something that humans have not made and the things within it that are not human. It is a buffer against our general tendency, a place that is a benefit and enjoyment to us because it is what it is rather than what it might otherwise do for us. And yet, we do not seem to understand that point when we simultaneously set up a Yellowstone that is and has been set up along class lines and manage the kind of access specific to the particular classes who can benefit from and obtain enjoyment of it. Instead of creating a Yellowstone that is a special exception, Yellowstone is the place where we set up something called “natural” and determine access to it based on one’s relative class position in the larger society. That inequity ultimately lends itself to an inequity toward the land and animals themselves because of the conflict that exists between the privileges of class and the land itself.

    So, we have those who believe they have a right to snowmobile in Yellowstone, for instance. Since Yellowstone was set up for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, why not allow all to access it through the means available to them? If the rich can enjoy Yellowstone by paying for guides, why can’t I as a private citizen do the same without a guide? That dispute comes about because there are class distinctions inherent in Yellowstone. Yet, when one group asserts itself against the injustices of the class distinctions that exist, then it is often the land and the wildlife that lose out. Snowmobiling for all may seem more equitable when compared with paying for a private tour, but it is hardly equitable for the land and wildlife that suffer under the scourge of snowmobiles. Those who then fight against snowmobiles, however, end up serving the interests of the most privileged classes. It is as though the “nature” of Yellowstone was the one preserved only for the few original passengers of the Northern Pacific Railroad. And, of course, below this, the poor do not own snowmobiles, cannot afford to come to a Yellowstone with snowmobiles, and the populist rhetoric of an organized segment of the middle class means nothing to them.

    Class manifests itself in Yellowstone like it does in every part of our society, and class hierarchy is contrary to the values that have driven our special adoration of Yellowstone. Solutions related to class obviously cannot be restricted to Yellowstone because they involve an entire social and economic system over and beyond anything that happens in the park. Yet, as a wedge against class in Yellowstone, I would suggest that one of the first steps is for us who care to encourage an environment where workers can organize for their own benefit much the way that the wealthy classes can manipulate government and the way the middle classes can use NGOs. Another step is for the people who live in the gateway communities of Yellowstone to do the same. All the rest of us who care about Yellowstone should start by understanding the means in which class hierarchy exists in Yellowstone and how that squares with the values we hold about the park.

    That is one reason I intend to research and write a people’s history of Yellowstone, if such a history exists. I believe this takes precedent over more funding for Yellowstone. Our funding goes to protect the land and the wildlife, but it also goes to protect a class system that will ultimately destroy the land and the wildlife. If we want to make a dramatic difference for the place we love, we have to reassess where we put our energy, time, and resources.

    Jim Macdonald

    For more on Jim, also see The Magic of Yellowstone


    Anonymous Kurt Repanshek said...


    A thought-provoking piece, though I would hope you could kindle a little more optimism for society as a whole when it comes to environmental stewardship;-)

    I would tend to agree with you that Yellowstone has an inherent class system. Why wouldn't it; its operation is reflective of our capitalistic society, which is built upon classes, like it or not.

    And, frankly, I would argue that the park's working class, both the young college seasonals, the retirees, and those who migrate between parks in summer and ski resorts in winter, benefit more from the park than the wealthy who come but for a short stay and fail more often than not to see the true splendors of Yellowstone. These workers are based in one of the most special places on Earth and are given ample time to explore it in all its moods, a priceless opportunity those on a tight timetable miss. In this instance, which class benefits more?

    Too, I surely would not gauge the merit of a Yellowstone visit on whether you can stay in the Old Faithful Inn. (Just the same, there are seasons when a room in the inn is still within reach of most.)

    Do we need to alter the existing system? Should there only be one type of room for guests, one affordable to all? Only one menu? Only one tour? Should Yellowstone be viewed by all on an equal footing? And if so, what would that equal footing be?

    The young in the park's working class surely are more fit and flexible, time-wise, than most within the so-called upper class to hoist a pack upon their backs and head off carefree into Yellowstone's outback to explore its wonders. In this case, aren't they better off than wealthier patrons who could try to share that experience from the back of a horse yet still would fall short of the same experience?

    Following this reasoning, I think your argument that "Yellowstone is the place where we set up something called “natural” and determine access to it based on one’s relative class position in the larger society" can be turned on its head.

    To be sure, access to Lake Hotel's master suites is determined by the size of one's purse. But again, a stay in the hotel is not central to enjoying or appreciating the park. Indeed, I would argue that watching the sun set from a backcountry campsite down the South Arm of Yellowstone Lake, a location where one can fall asleep to bugling elk in late summer or watch a shooting star ignite a path across the sky, is a richer experience than pulling one of the hotel's comforters tighter under your chin.

    How class manifests itself in Yellowstone, I think is truly in the eye of the beholder and dependent upon how adventurous that beholder is.

    All that considered, I share your fear that we could destroy the very place we love if we're not careful. We do have to reassess our priorities for Yellowstone and all the other parks in the system.


    1/3/07 5:05 PM  
    Blogger Jim Macdonald said...


    A couple points...

    One of my points was skepticism that Yellowstone's working poor was representative of lower classes. In fact, most lower class people have no access to the Park than do.

    Secondly, regardless of the advantages of class (I agree; I had no interest in staying in the Old Faithful Inn, I enjoyed my working experience), one is still pigeonholed into the form of appreciation based on class. Regardless of whether my working experience was rewarding, I had little other choice in my way of seeing the Park (my recent bike trip was evidence of my graduation to the middle class). It also led me to have an animosity toward those who were spending the money that gave me a job (I am hardly alone - tourists are regularly referred to as tourons and not simply because they are stupid). At Ham's, many people loved working there but still had a private loathing for the Povah family and the $10 gift certificates they would grace us with every so often for some store sales award. They were considered cheapskates, and the only nice thing workers now tell me about them now is that Delaware North is even worse.

    Yes, I have heard the elk bugling and seen the shooting stars and have had all kinds of advantages because I was a working poor person in Yellowstone. It was the better deal for me. It, however, is not a better deal for Yellowstone or for all the poor. I met foreign workers from Poland and Bulgaria who had to work every moment in order to make the money to go home. Many of them never even got to see much of Yellowstone. One set washed people's cars and worked in West Yellowstone on every weekend just to make end's meet. A waitress from Poland was bitter and felt lied to.

    That there are particular advantages to working in Yellowstone I acknowledge in the first paragraph. Ultimately, though, that misses the point. The apparent reverse paradise is only that, and class hierarchies in parks like Yellowstone are root cancers on the preservation system in place.

    As for optimism for society as a whole, I'm not sure what that means. I think it's pretty optimistic to suggest that there are ways of fighting that don't rely on succumbing to the same class system dynamics in which we live.

    1/3/07 5:30 PM  
    Blogger American Puzzle said...

    Jim - Thank you for finding me and commenting. This piece is compelling as well, and thoughtful. Although, I have stayed in Old Faithful Inn - once - for a few days. :) You also clearly have much more experience than I with working in the park, and you have detailed the class issue very well. One thing, I read the comment by Kurt and your response - the foreign students I worked with in 2005 were just as "entitled" as their American college student brethren - saw it time and again in their attitudes about work. So I don't know that I can fully agree with that assessment...however, I love your writing. I'm adding your blog as a link under my Education and Community tag and look forward to reading more! ;)

    8/4/08 9:09 AM  
    Blogger Jim Macdonald said...

    Hey there,

    Thanks for the kind words and the comment.

    On foreign workers, I say in the other piece on the company towns of Greater Yellowstone that they too represent a special class - typically workers who are not poor in their own country. Or else, how do you come up with the initial $2,000? College students, professional types, etc. I'm sure I came to Yellowstone originally poorer than most of the foreign workers.

    But, the class distinctions and hardships relative to society are the same; one of the points I think I was making in some of these essays was that it's even ironic that people who are relatively privileged get thrust into the lower rungs of the class system as it exists in Yellowstone. It must be doubly so for a foreign worker from a college or professional background suddenly thrust into a position in the United States where so many are xenophobic, so many have stereotypes of immigrant workers, and where these people have been lied to by their employers and put into the unenviable place of having to work extra jobs just to make it back or to earn the money for their own studies or their families.

    Anyhow, it's very nice to see someone thinking about these things in terms of her own experience. And, having done the grad school thing, taught classes, dealt with the various family and societal issues faced by students, it was all the more refreshing to read things from experience I can relate with.

    If there was something I didn't feel entirely comfortable with in your essay was your words hedging a bit on your support of unions. I definitely agree that the big unions are largely corrupt or out of touch with their workers, but the union concept is essential to resistance against classism in society. I guess I take a wobbly approach - where workers themselves are the direct participants in their union leadership - but that's the exception unfortunately rather than the norm.

    Take care and thanks again. Be sure to pop me an email if there's something you'd like me to read.

    8/4/08 2:25 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home