Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's ridiculous to say the least, some of us are actually college educated, tolerant of gays and minorities despite the fact we wear carhartts to church.
I would agree that it doesn't apply to everyone. When I lived in a rural area of Ohio for twenty years I knew many people to whom it didn't apply. But, where I lived there was also a significant portion of the population which possessed none of the traits you describe, and this article describes them pretty well. I certainly wouldn't say the article is ridiculous.
I agree it doesn't apply to everyone. But, where I lived, it applies a very significant portion of the population.
I agree it's a very significant portion of the population. Heck I can't even buy alcohol after 9PM or buy cold beer because of the Baptists here.
I am not certain however you can stereotype all of rural America that way. For instance, Eureka Springs, Arkansas is a gay mecca and is very progressive and tolerant.
As far as the Bible Belt, I would say Oklahoma is easily the buckle. Right-wing, fundamentalist ideology permeates the state through and through, with the exception of small parts of Norman and Tulsa. No other state can say that and every other Bible Belt state has progressive areas. Oklahoma does not. It's all conservative and it's all fundamentalist.
The last part really made me basically he makes generalized statements about rural America like us rural Americans supposedly do.But this part really made me mad
Quote:
"They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their farm subsidies, helps maintain their highways, and keeps their hospitals in their sparsely populated areas open for business." "-They get a tremendous amount of help from the government they complain does nothing for them. they use to the farm subsidies, crop insurance, commodities protections…they benefit greatly from government assistance. The Farm Bill is one of the largest financial expenditures by the U.S. government. Without government assistance, their lives would be considerably worse."
If you urban people did not have us dirty horrible farm people working 90 hours a week, and putting all our money into planting crops or depending on the commodities to be good so you know we don't starve to death. This author wouldn't have homegrown food. But you know scr** us right.
We should work 90 hours a week, and never see our families and sell our crops or meat, or dairy for free to feed your urban families because in your eyes you are in fact morally and socially superior to us and we are just dirty farmers.
I mean, does this author even understand what the farm bill is. Does the author understand the reason we are paid to "Not plant" In certain area's that we own is to protect wildlife biodiversity.
No Rural America is not a horrible waste land that the left would like you to believe, but we are hurting right now and not all rural Americans are the same like not all Gays, or Blacks, or Mexcians are the same.
I've never lived in rural areas so I have no idea if his depiction is correct.
comments?
The stage for this was set when the Southern Baptist Convention was taking over by a cult of bibliolaters and purged everyone who did not believe the Bible was literal Truth (with a capital T). Through an extremist power play, a major church group converted itself to a cult that is hostile to all inquiry and critical thought.
I've lived in Rural areas in CT, TX, ND, MN, AR, OK and SD
Have found each one to be very individualistic. Found one I disliked, but all of them being unique and having it's own strengths and weaknesses. The only generality I found common in all I have lived in is the people tend to be independent and very self sufficient.
Yes, the article is acerbic and simplistic; no large group of people is monolithic or completely benighted. But the essential point has merit. Namely, much of rural America is held back more by its own culture, than by external impositions from rapacious corporations, overreaching government, intrusive immigrants or nattering elites.
Insular, ossified culture is by no means limited to America's rural parts, or to America itself; witness for example oft-noted tendencies in the tribal societies so pervasive in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The common trait is that people who have lived for generations in areas of low population density, who don't travel much, who are closely associated with agriculture or the mechanical arts, who marry young and prioritize family-formation over pursuit of careers, tend to have some common traits all over the world. And those traits, while in some regards noble and exemplary, are especially challenging in a "globalized", high-tech, service-oriented world.
I've never lived in rural areas so I have no idea if his depiction is correct.
comments?
I think it describes a certain small segment of rural America, but it's important to note that Fundamentalists make up a very small portion of rural America. His analysis tells us more about his personal experiences than it does about the experience of living in rural America TODAY.
I live in rural America, and I'm a liberal, and I do know some Fundamentalists. And my family moved to Arkansas from urban Massachusetts. I will tell you that some of my relatives from urban areas are much more rigid and conservative than even some of the Fundamentalists in rural America.
The bottom line is people are people. They arrive at their political positions based on their personal experiences and knowledge. There is not one person that I've ever come across whose position wasn't complex and contradictory. Every single person has a unique perspective, based on who they are, based on the life they've led. This unique perspective encompasses their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, their entire belief about who they are and their place in this world.
Generalizations are for statiticians, not for deep and profound understanding.
I grew up a rural person, spent 10 years in the big city because I had "the itch," and I'm now back in the rural areas mainly because I hate traffic and noise.
One thing the author of the article is right about, at least with SOME of them--their tendency towards "this is the way we do things around here, and if you don't like it you can take your Yankee azz out of here" if you make ANY suggestion about ANYTHING in terms of changing anything for any reason no matter what it is. For instance, I dislike the noise of dogs barking, and I think that's a totally legitimate complaint, but if you move somewhere and there's some "good ol' boy" with a bunch of hunting dogs that bark all the time, well you shouldn't have moved here they'll tell you, and I don't think they're necessarily right.
In my case, for awhile I had someone next to me--they moved in AFTER me by the way, although I think it was their brother's place from well back and they were taking it over--who had a yorkie they kept outside and that stupid thing barked at anything and everything constantly. I moved to the country to GET AWAY from noise, not to have the freedom to make it (with one exception, below), and no matter how much I tried to reason with this person they basically told me to go fly a kite, and you can guess their response: "that's how people live around here, this is the country, we don't need some outsider coming in here telling 'us' how to live." (Excuse me, I was here first, so who is the "outsider?") I can honestly say that the only reason I didn't shoot that dog so I could have some peace and quiet was because it was against the law, that was the ONLY reason. Thankfully they're gone now.
Now me, I like having the freedom to pop firecrackers here, and I do so on occasion, that is part of our culture. HOWEVER, if someone moved in and they, say, had PTSD from fighting in the war or maybe they had lived in places in Mexico where the drug lords are shooting people, and owing to such the sounds of a firecracker popping off cause them to be jittery, guess what--I am NOT going to tell them "that's how we do things here, we don't want some outsider coming in telling us how to live," no, I am going to try to be a reasonable person and compromise with them. Maybe they periodically visit their old war buddies at the Veteran's Hall or whatever (I can't recall what they're called, those places where former war veterans can go hang out) or a men's lodge etc, and maybe there are occasions they go when I'm NOT working, and maybe I can enjoy my firecrackers on those days when they're gone. I am going to welcome the "diversity," I find other cultures and such interesting. Heck even well known hick Jerry Clower once did a bit on how there were a lot of people from Lebanon who lived in his area, people very different from his "kind," yet he said "I love them very much, they add a lot to our community." (The bit is called "Apple Pie & Coffee.")
Getting back to my former neighbor, there was one exception to what I said--over time, the husband actually compromised with me a bit in time, the wife was still unpleasant and stubborn, but the husband worked with me. He would bring the dog inside while he was gone at work, since I worked nights during that time, and when I was gone at night he would let it run around free. Basically he kept it quiet when I was going to be home (after all it was a yorkie, it's not a big deal to have a little dog inside vs something like a German Shephard), but when I was gone with him still home--and there were plenty of times this was the case--he took advantage of that time to let the dog "just be" totally. Recently someone else showed up asking about that free lot and wanting to find out the owner so they could possibly rent it, before I'd give them that info I basically "screened" them a bit, in a very pleasant way, to see that they would not be a person who'd just let a yappy dog bother somebody, and they looked at me like I was from Mars, they highly resented being asked, and I can tell you such is quite common with many rural people, someone different from them (as I suppose I was) is immediately looked at with disdain vs them thinking of how we can all get along and how we can make that happen.
I bike-ride, and there is a rural road that is VERY rural and I like bicycling on it but lately there has been quite a bit of 18-wheeler activity going on (construction, apparently), and people have told me my presence may bother them, but I've told them tough luck I'm not going anywhere. Apparently bicycling is not something many adults do in this area, and apparently the 18 wheelers may find my presence annoying and a bit of a surprise to them, but I have every right to bicycle on the roads (especially ones that secluded) and those 18-wheelers always have the 4-lane highways. I'm not going to stop bicycling on those roads because the 18-wheelers dislike it, no matter if that's possibly "how we do things around here."
That is one thing the author is right about--certain rural people can be stubborn about "this is the way we do things around here" even if they're wrong or inconsiderate of others. I suppose, though, all cultures and such can be susceptible to this.
I've never lived in rural areas so I have no idea if his depiction is correct.
comments?
I'd take that article with a grain of salt. Alternet is a far left wing website whose main demographic is college educated, upper middle class, rabidly liberal, white people from major metro areas thru out the nation. I suspect they are not fond of white rural and small town America, because the people who live there tend to be working class whites and vote Republican and by a wide margin.
The last part really made me basically he makes generalized statements about rural America like us rural Americans supposedly do.But this part really made me mad
If you urban people did not have us dirty horrible farm people working 90 hours a week, and putting all our money into planting crops or depending on the commodities to be good so you know we don't starve to death. This author wouldn't have homegrown food. But you know scr** us right.
We should work 90 hours a week, and never see our families and sell our crops or meat, or dairy for free to feed your urban families because in your eyes you are in fact morally and socially superior to us and we are just dirty farmers.
I mean, does this author even understand what the farm bill is. Does the author understand the reason we are paid to "Not plant" In certain area's that we own is to protect wildlife biodiversity.
No Rural America is not a horrible waste land that the left would like you to believe, but we are hurting right now and not all rural Americans are the same like not all Gays, or Blacks, or Mexcians are the same.
..........." The Farm Bill is one of the biggest expenditures of the US govt "...
and the majority of Farm Bill spending is for,,,,,,,,,,,,,FOOD STAMPS
subsidies account for less than 3% of Farm Bill spending
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
