A cultural/geographical observation

Post Reply New Topic

Rural, conservative, humble people are often charged with being more insular, unsophisticated or "redneck" than urban, liberal bigshots. Perhaps this is due to a relative subconscious, intuitive, hierarchical disdain for the rural/conservative/humble than the urban/liberal/bigshots.

In reality, I think this is turned on its head. Too often, the urban/city people are insular because they have everything there for them in a small area, especially if they're in a culturally renowned city, or an economic powerhouse (even if sometimes that means high wealth inequality) of a city. The rural, remote, conservative people have to think outside the box more, as there is little at hand near them and they have to expand their horizons.

I think you need to qualify this and add
In the USA,
As nothing you are stereotyping is relevant to the UK, where the rich and upper middle classes have accommodation in the country and the poorer less well off live in the City.
The USA is about 5% of the world population; it is not the centre of the universe. Not everyone cares

The very next day after I posted my thread about Americanisation, seems like some of my Americanisation has still stuck, lol.

Ooooo.

SNAP!

That the USA is 5% of the world population and not the centre of the world is reality, as understood by any objective person. That it is the centre of the world is apparently reality to Americans themselves, this being another factor in why they want to give the middle finger to anything that isn't American.

Actually now you're stereotyping because I know a lot of poor people who live in the country. Pretty much my entire family actually. I also live in a village but I am on benefits, so being poor doesn't neccessarily mean living in a city.

As for the observation on villages by the OP, sort of right sort of not. I have found a lot of people living in my own village to be snobby and they are all NIMBYs (not in my back yard). On the other hand, the village in North Yorkshire where all my family are from is very friendly... sometimes a little too friendly...

Facts do not support your 'personal knowledge' In the 2006 Millennium Cohort Study, for the Social Profile of Rural Britain from Longitudinal Studies
According to the above studies to meet the criteria of being classed as poor, you have to meet the agreed laid down criteria, which somewhat simplified is “not able to gain access to such things as health care, with earning below 60% of the minimum (average), with high incidents of child deprivation, low ownership a vehicle, and limited access to the Internet “.
In rural areas 1% of families are classed as poor by the above criteria
In the rural towns it is something like 19 % of families meet the above criteria
In urban areas it is 27% meet the above criteria

The report states
“ The incidence of poverty thus defined was lower in rural and semi-rural areas than urban England, which is another way of saying that relatively affluent people are more likely to live in the countryside, especially villages and more dispersed areas, but not that there are no poor people there at all.”