Thread: Thank God I'm a country boy! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027775
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I wonder if there is mileage in a thread about urban vs. rural attitudes, positions, mentalities ...
The well-known Dutch writer Geert Mak once said "The great cultural divide in our world isn't between the West and Islam, it isn't between the North and the South, it's between rural and urban mentalities." I believe he has a point here.
Sure there are differences, but in their everyday lives I believe that people from São Paulo, Johannesburg, Moscow or Sidney have more in common than what divides them. And on the other hand, I've worked with farmers in places like Haiti, Brazil, Mozambique, Palestine and Thailand, and I've always been surprised at how well their stories seem to connect with eachother.
I'm from a rural background myself. Of course this is very relative in a densely populated country like the Netherlands, but even there I feel a difference between the folks from my region and those from Amsterdam, those arrogant, talkative, unstrustworthy bastards. (Sorry, let myself go there ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Politically, the way this works out is that rural people are generally more conservative and urban people more progressive. I've been told that this is because a farmer always wants the security of his next harvest, I don't know if this explanation holds. But the current political situation in the US for example seems to play out sharply along urban / rural lines. (Sometimes I think: what if Democrats managed to reach out more to rural people? Surely they have something in common. Rural schools or hospitals for example.)
So, how urban / rural are you? How do you feel about the importance of these differences? Does my explanation about the political outworking of this hold water? What can be done to bring these groups closer together? (Or maybe shouldn't that happen?) I'd like to hear your opinions.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm a city boy. It's how I grew up and I like it. I'm also gay, which until recently meant it might not be pleasant in a small town with conservative religious people running the place.
In the United States, modern agriculture is hollowing out rural communities. It takes fewer and fewer people to manage mechanized agriculture. This may be temporarily offset when there's an oil boom, but in general rural areas far from the urban sprawl are depopulating.
In the past there have been coalitions between urban working Democrats and Farmers, typically in the face of a common foe, the bankers of Wall Street. This is best seen in the fact that food stamps for the poor and agricultural subsidies tend to be in the same bill. These coalitions often happen when a financial depression means that both groups are suffering enough to forget differences.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the United States, modern agriculture is hollowing out rural communities. It takes fewer and fewer people to manage mechanized agriculture. This may be temporarily offset when there's an oil boom, but in general rural areas far from the urban sprawl are depopulating.
In the past there have been coalitions between urban working Democrats and Farmers, typically in the face of a common foe, the bankers of Wall Street. This is best seen in the fact that food stamps for the poor and agricultural subsidies tend to be in the same bill.
Which is breaking down for exactly the reason you cite-- that today, agricultural subsidies are no longer helping small, struggling rural farmers (in fact, they often hurt them) but rather are enriching large corporate factory farms.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
It can be very difficult to live in rural areas if you're outside the norm in those areas, eg if one is an immigrant in a monocultural small town or village. Minorities of all kinds usually find cities easier to survive in.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
In the Uk, well England, it is a little more homogenous in that you get people living in the country but work in towns and cities. In the Scottish highlands and parts of Wales that may be different.
Of course urban born and bred types are probably less likely to work in the country, but t'other way round is common I think.
I really don't know about the questions asked in the OP though. I prefer the country, but within twenty minutes drive of town! Perhaps that explains why I'm on the left of the Conservative Party!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Thanks for your answers. Yes, looking from I do think that some of the policies from the more conservative party in the US can hurt rural communities. And I guess a sense of traditionalism with a dose of religion mixed in mean that these people still vote for these politicians. I'm not sure if how sustainable this is in the long run.
quote:
Jade Constable: It can be very difficult to live in rural areas if you're outside the norm in those areas, eg if one is an immigrant in a monocultural small town or village. Minorities of all kinds usually find cities easier to survive in.
Yes, I can imagine that. I guess it also creates a self-strenghening mechanism. The 'outsiders' who usually also think more liberally leave, and the more conservative ones stay, making the conservative / progressive divide among rural / urban lines even bigger.
Politically I'm rather left-wing and thus much closer than urban than rural people in general terms. But the thing is, I like rural people! I feel very much at home amongst them, I like talking with them, I like their culture, their parties ... A strange thing is that. (It might have been different if I were gay though.)
quote:
deano: I prefer the country, but within twenty minutes drive of town!
If I'd ever settle down, that would be my choice too.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
I grew up in the market town of a rural area. Most of my extended family in the area are farmers, market gardeners, or tradespeople. Very few have any sort of higher education.
They are, almost without exception, loving, hardworking and tolerant people, pillars of their churches, and not much for fussing around matters of personal choice. I have already told the story of my elderly aunts having a go at the church on my behalf.
They are generally conservative voters, but interestingly, the electorate they're in had a strong swing to the left at last week's election (possibly a split vote, but hey). In the more rural electorate, they have one of the most left leaning right wing politicians I have ever met!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
So, how urban / rural are you? How do you feel about the importance of these differences?
I was born and raised in Edmonton, a medium-sized city(about a million, if you count the suburbs), the capital of a province considered to have a strong rural influence, exerting a conservative political effect. Since the 1980s, however, Edmonton has had an on-again off-again habit of electing left-wingers to city hall and the provincial legislature, possibly reflecting its status as a government, university, and union town.
With the exception of my family, it seemed like almost everyone in our neighbourhood came originally from rural areas, mostly in Canada but a small handful from overseas. I rarely visited the countryside, but always thought I had some idea as to the culture there, as a result of living among transplants.
In my 30s, I moved to the fifth largest city in Korea, also the (now former) capital of a largely agricultural region. However, this particular agricultural region is considered to be very left-wing, and my city was the site of a famous and tragic uprising against the military dictatorship in 1980.
A few years back I moved to a smaller city in the same region, expecting to find it even more monocultural and left-wing than the previous place. Actually, though, I meet more people in this city from elsewhere in Korea, since it's a bit of an iddustrial hub and thus attracts workers to its factories, shipyards, etc. As many of these workers come from the more conservative provinces, I have had to accustom myself to hearing right-wing opinions from Koreans.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Does my explanation about the political outworking of this hold water?
Well, in Canada, there is a whole tradition of agrarian socialism, reaching its apex in the old CCF parties and, for a while, the NDP. Even my home province, the notoriously conservative Alberta, was governed in the 1920s and 30s by the United Farmers, an economically populist outfit with a crazy-quilt ideology that had some overtones of socialism.
These days, I think Canada has fallen more in line with the pattern you reference, ie. rural areas being conservaitve. Saskatchewan, the crade of agrarian socialism in Canada, sent 13 Conservatives, one Liberal, and zero socialists to the federal parliament last election.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I grew up in the market town of a rural area. Most of my extended family in the area are farmers, market gardeners, or tradespeople. Very few have any sort of higher education.
They are, almost without exception, loving, hardworking and tolerant people, pillars of their churches, and not much for fussing around matters of personal choice. I have already told the story of my elderly aunts having a go at the church on my behalf.
They are generally conservative voters, but interestingly, the electorate they're in had a strong swing to the left at last week's election (possibly a split vote, but hey). In the more rural electorate, they have one of the most left leaning right wing politicians I have ever met!
Interestingly, my home province and New Zealand are among the very few places in the world where orthodox Social Credit had any impact as an electoral force. I'm not sure if they were rural or urban based in NZ. In Alberta, definitely rural in origin flavour, but pretty popular across the board.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: Well, in Canada, there is a whole tradition of agrarian socialism, reaching its apex in the old CCF parties and, for a while, the NDP. Even my home province, the notoriously conservative Alberta, was governed in the 1920s and 30s by the United Farmers, an economically populist outfit with a crazy-quilt ideology that had some overtones of socialism.
That's interesting, I'd like to learn more about that.
The North-Eastern part of the Netherlands (the region where I was born) has an interesting history of agrarian socialism / communism. Around 1917 they even proclaimed the Soviet Republic of the Ems (a local river), waiting for the Russians to arrive. Mostly it was the poor farm workers who were into this though, not the rich landowners. However, there were some exceptions; Sicco Mansholt came from a family of rich socialist farmers.
I'd love to know more about the Canadian agrarian socialists. It's a topic that interests me. Were they farm workers, or large-scale farmers, or ...?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
They were family farmers, you would call them large scale and they would hire farm hands when necessary, but if you were family, it was your job to tend to the family farm.
You have to go back to 1917. The Conservative Government of Sir Robert Borden implemented Conscription and pressed farmers to grow every bit of crop they could "for the War Effort"; crop rotation be damned, which every farmer can tell you is madness. Borden had promised not to conscript farmers sons and reneged on that promise.
Borden wouldn't listen to farmers, and as a result they formed a third party, the United Farmers, known as the Progressives federally. However that party was unstable and petered out in the early 1930's. Parts of it formed the "Ginger Group", the core of what became the CCF.
There really wasn't urban in Saskatchewan at that time, nor in most of the Prairies except perhaps Winnipeg, and even that town was strongly left-wing. Also, at that time the Prairie Provinces were treated as colonies by the Federal Government/Canada's Elite.
By design, the quarter-section lots which could be homesteaded for low cost were not enough to really set up a viable farm, and the neighbouring lots were "Railway Lots" which had to be purchased from the railways at high prices. Thus most farmers were deeply indebted to banks and mortgage companies (based in the East, naturally). The railways and the lenders were the feudal lords of the West, they controlled all transportation, the all-important rail freight rates for grain, and the land. And all of it was federally regulated by Eastern interests, not provincially regulated.
Widespread crop failure, drought and price slumps in the 1930's led to financial, personal and agricultural disaster on the Prairies. the Government of Saskatchewan went broke in 1935 and had to rely on Federal assistance to stay afloat.
The CCF was organized in Regina in 1933. The original manifesto is here: Regina Manifesto.
Note the points about tariff reduction for agricultural exports, co-operative institutions and anti-Big Finance planks. In power the CCF implemented a moderate number of "Crown Corporations" or State Enterprises, but nothing ever approaching the level of "Central Planning", though it did included a number of social programmes, especially Canada's cherished public health insurance system.
The CCF was in power from 1944 - 1964.
Even today most electoral races in Saskatchewan are Conservative/NDP.
The modern NDP began as a "Farmer-Labour-Socialist" coalition in 1960 and that is still the basis of the party today; the NDP wins many seats in northern and remote areas where there isn't much industry or where the industry is so concentrated in one-industry towns that a strong "us/them" attitude develops.
And if you ask people like me, one of the key problems with the Ontario NDP is that it is too Toronto-focused and doesn't pay enough attention to rural areas of Southern Ontario, so its platform doesn't sell as well as it could.
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:
We've still got the DFL 'round here, another Minnesota oddity. Our Democrats are historically Farmer-Labor. From my own perspective it makes sense - a lot of the first wave of farmers here were Scandanvian and tended to be more progressive. Now we have a big city-countey divide, though, and it seems to be the biggest city becoming more myopic and the conservatives all running to exurbia - hence a state that sends both Michelle Bachman and Keith Ellison to the House.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The farms in western Canada export their kids to the city. The city people, former farmers or descended from them, consider the farm to have been Eden. A place to return to, a place of pleasure and good old days, of tradition, whether of values or cooking with bacon fat. Of course, when in the farm-Eden, they couldn't wait to get the hell out, because it was hell: weather, bugs, floods, drought, dust bowl, can't pay the bills, club root on canola, or smut on the corn. A curious paradox.
With the alliance of the left in Canada to labour, to the unions, in the cities where most of people now live, things have greatly changed. Farmers are small to medium self employed agribusinesses now. Thus the low corporate tax rates, the averaging of income over years and other things have transformed them into conservatives about economics.
However, the conservatism about economics also means distrust of out-of-province corporations, which provides what could be seen as a socialist twist, except it isn't. Hence the largest corporate presence in most the Canadian prairies being the co-op, which means gas station, grocery stores, pharmacy, hardware. Owned by the people who own shares. Banking is done by credit unions, also share holder owned. This also accounts for the government owned Crown corporations which provide variously electric, natural gas, telephone, cable television, internet, cellular telephone, landline telephone, automobile insurance, house insurance. -- I don't think some of this fits with conceptions of conservatism and socialism in other places. But why would I buy anything from some out of province company which keeps it's profits out of province? Keep the ownership local. It is also found that nonlocal companies can't or won't provide rural services.
So in answer to the OP, conservatism may look rather progressive and lefty if you ignore the history. SPK mentioned the Regina Manifesto above, which looks rather communist if you read it. Yet, the social welfare, public (government) ownership of industry and keeping the rich out of province people under control are considered conservative. And what would be considered progressive is to let the large corporations headquartered elsewhere to come in.
[ 25. September 2014, 04:02: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Another thing that is changing the divide is that a large number of city people are moving to the red states, in a blue state diaspora This is increasing the population of these states, but it's also turning them more liberal. It's already happened in New Hampshire, where immigrants from Massachusetts turned a very conservative state into a more liberal one. Colorado and Arizona are both in the process of changing and even Texas is looking less a Republican certainty.
People are getting priced out of the big cities in New York and California. Some of this is urban to urban migration, but some of it is moving to smaller towns.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I was brought up in an urban environment, a very rough council estate in Luton known in the1980s for its race riots and now for its drugs problem. I spent my 20s living in London, Bethnal Green so fairly central and spent most of my weekends in the West End. I loved my time in London, it was great fun and confidence building, but I decided to leave it when I got married as the busy-ness of a city made it difficult to manage my bipolar disorder.
We spent a year in a very small Cambridgeshire village where everyone knew each other which I really liked, though amenities were an issue with no car then (I got very fit with the 3 mile walk into Cambridge though!). We now live in what was once a village but is rapidly being swallowed up by Cambridge, until recently my house looked out upon open fields but now there are houses appearing.
We will be moving further out to a small local town in the next few years, a village would be nice but very expensive here. I do prefer smaller places now, a small market town in Suffolk would be my ideal. I like the slowness of life and friendliness of a small community. We have quite an eccentric lifestyle, in our dream world we'd have a smallholding with some barns to make and sell crafts from, but I've never had problems fitting in in the city or village, it would be the urban estate of my youth that would probably take most exception to my alternative dress and outlook, conformity being a big issue in such a society, ime.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The city people, former farmers or descended from them, consider the farm to have been Eden. A place to return to, a place of pleasure and good old days, of tradition, whether of values or cooking with bacon fat. Of course, when in the farm-Eden, they couldn't wait to get the hell out, because it was hell: weather, bugs, floods, drought, dust bowl, can't pay the bills, club root on canola, or smut on the corn. A curious paradox.
I'm not sure it's as curious as all that. People value the traditional way of village/farm life, where traditions are respected, values change seldom, and there aren't too many people running round getting in the way of each other. But the jobs and the money are in the cities, where change is constant and overpopulation is rife.
I would love to live in a small village where some small vestige of the good old days is maintained and traditions are respected. But I also want a job, and the facilities (shopping, recreation, etc.) that come with being in a city. I guess the ideal would be a city where some small vestige of the good old days is maintained and traditions are respected, but that would be impossible because of all the outsiders that would keep moving in and forcing things to change and get more crowded. So it goes...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I live in Norfolk part of the time, and there is something that we value there, that we don't get in London: big open fields, village shop, huge skeins of wild geese in winter, hares in the fields, a sense of quiet, few cars, huge garden, owls hooting.
Of course, it's not all bliss, we also live next to a farm with huge piles of turkey shit, and a corn dryer, which works all night, also rats and mice.
But I've tried it as a permanent thing, and I start getting antsy, and miss London.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I'm determinedly rural, and can't cope with cities (London is my idea of a nightmare).
However to make life work I drive 25,000 miles a year commuting daily to work nearly 40 miles away, and have done for around 5 years now.
But, when I'm not in the office, I'm in the fields, following the local hounds, getting involved in the harvest, and where a ploughing match is a social function to look forward to. I will have my own farm by 2020 - that's the plan anyway.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... in Canada, there is a whole tradition of agrarian socialism
[tangent]
My home county of Norfolk is (and was) one of the most rural parts of England and remains proud of its radical heritage (including municipal socialism). A blog entry found on Google summarises some of our heroes. Kett, hanged at Norwich Castle, is now commemorated there as a "courageous leader in the long struggle of the common people".
Thinking about East Anglia's heroes suggests its radicalism is more about opposition to change imposed externally than social justice per se. After all 'radical' is etymologically about 'roots'. Our local heroes are Boudicca, Hereward the Wake, Kett, Tom Paine, Elizabeth Fry, Edith Cavell all remembered for bucking authority. Even Nelson, a local lad, is partly admired for his famous insubordination. The motto of Norfolk is "do different".
Yeah, yeah, I know, NFN - Normal for Norfolk. I felt a sudden pang of nostalgia.
[/tangent]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
What about us suburbanites? I love the countryside, but couldn't live in the middle of nowhere, nor could I live in a big city, but I like to be able to access both easily (demanding? Moi?). I would therefore tend to favour policies which deliver viable infrastructure to sustain my sort of community and provide that access.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
See, I'm the opposite. Could either do absolute isolation (on a Scottish island or something) or a big city, but suburbia is hellish to me. Unfortunately it's where I currently live (it's a former military barracks converted into a very small town, which is an odd-feeling bit of suburbia in the middle of a rural area). I think it might be related to my social anxiety - it's easy to be anonymous in a big city, which I appreciate. The kind of place where everyone knows each other (whether a town or a village) would be really stressful to me.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The kind of place where everyone knows each other (whether a town or a village) would be really stressful to me.
Hell is other people!
I live in a bit of town which seems to have been forgotten. People talk about 'going into Bristol' when it's under a mile to the big shopping area. My wife talks of going to 'the village shops', a lot of people say "Hello!" - or often "As-salamu alaykum!".
It seems a good compromise.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
In my world, suburbia is white, middle-class, straight-acting, and utterly terrifying. I would rather live anywhere in the U.S. you can think of before I lived in a suburb. I'm white, middle-class, and married to a man, but such places are alien and feel soul-killing.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
See, I like it! My kids go to a Catholic school which means they get to meet kids from many ethnic backgrounds (and we their parents). It is largely hideously bourgeois but that's OK because we are too (if anything, most of our friends are better off than us). We have easy access to open countryside, the market town of Fareham, 'Olde Worlde' villages like Titchfield and Wickham, plus the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton and, last but not least, the sea; best of all worlds!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I forgot the sea. In summer we drive up to Titchwell, go bird-watching, and lie on the beach. You can't do that in London!
But in Titchwell, I can't go to the Tate gallery, or a million other places that I like in London.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
We're lucky enough to have a lake bigger than some seas a few blocks away--and that's wonderful--but I admit I do miss nature. I would say though that most people who live in the suburbs don't actually go hiking/camping/whatnot to get into nature any more than most people in the city actually go to museums/plays/whatnot to experience culture.
[ 25. September 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(Blatant attempt to steer the thread in more Purgatorial waters again. I don't know how much of I say I have in this, but as the OP'er I wasn't really looking for "I like the countryside better!" "No, I prefer the 'burbs!" ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
quote:
Sober Preacher's Kid: You have to go back to 1917. The Conservative Government of Sir Robert Borden implemented Conscription and pressed farmers to grow every bit of crop they could "for the War Effort"; crop rotation be damned, which every farmer can tell you is madness. Borden had promised not to conscript farmers sons and reneged on that promise.
That's interesting, thank you. What I've learned in basic sociology class is that farmers are naturally conservative because they perceive progressiveness as risk-taking. They always need the security of their next harvest, so they prefer to keep things the way they are. More generally, their connection to the land they inherited from their forefathers makes them more traditional than city-folk who might live in a rented house. This is reinforced because the more progressive-minded people feel the rural area as a limitation (or in the case of some minorities, a threat) and leave, while the more conservative people stay behind.
But as your example shows, all of this can change when a conservative government messes too much with farmers. Interesting.
quote:
AmyBo: Now we have a big city-countey divide, though, and it seems to be the biggest city becoming more myopic
I feel that this sense of myopy about the country-side is real. I can sense it in the Netherlands too. And speaking as a leftie, I admit that the left is often guilty of it. I'd like to be able to find ways to change that.
(Which of course would lead to the suburbs people saying: "What about us?" )
quote:
Palimpsest: Another thing that is changing the divide is that a large number of city people are moving to the red states, in a blue state diaspora
I think in the US there are two effects that might contribute to states becoming bluer: the exodus of liberal city folk, and the influx of immigrants (mostly Hispanics). I'm not sure if they always run in parallel. Nate Silver seems to say that the first effect is small.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
I'm what I'd describe as "small-town urban". I grew up in Kirkwall* (population about 6,000) in the Orkney islands, which was urban enough to have most of the amenities one needed (except good clothes shops, for which one had to go "south" to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or wherever), but rural enough to feel safe walking home alone at midnight.
There was a cinema, a swimming-pool, a small theatre and lots of clubs, societies and festivals (the St. Magnus Festival in particular brought a huge amount in the way of cultural experiences), and I can't say I ever felt deprived.
Since then I've lived in Belfast and now St. John's, Newfoundland, and I'm happy to be a small-city girl - we live close enough to w*rk that commuting isn't a pain, and if we want some countryside, less than half an hour's drive will take us there.
As my Ship title implies, I'm an islander and happy to be one, with the caveat that I like to get off the island at least every 18 months or so, to avoid feeling a bit stir-crazy.
* a City and Royal Burgh, just not a very big one.
eta: Sorry, LeRoc - I cross-posted, and having read your post above I realise I've fallen right into the "what I like about one or the other" trap. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 25. September 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: piglet ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
piglet: eta: Sorry, LeRoc - I cross-posted, and having read your post above I realise I've fallen right into the "what I like about one or the other" trap.
No problem, I guess it's bound to happen with a thread like this.
What I'm looking for is: do you feel that being from a rural background has shaped your way of thinking? (I guess being from an island has an even stronger effect.) Is there an explanation for this? Is the divide between urban vs. rural mentalities a good or a bad thing? It obviously has an effect on politics, but are there other effects too? Can we do something to overcome it? Should we?
Or at least something like that ...
[ 25. September 2014, 14:11: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I too was feeling I'd spent WaY too much time posting about what I like about where I live. I think for me it's about having spent too much time very unhappy in the country and very reminded of how easy it can be for a town to curl up and ignore everyone who is different. I'm sure cities do have similar social faults (different from the risks of living in a city) though I'm not sure what they are, but the faults of a city are too close to me to be so obvious.
What tendencies to cities have that are frustrating? I gather it's partially that cities tend to have the money, and ignore the smaller towns?
[ 25. September 2014, 14:21: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... I guess being from an island has an even stronger effect ...
Absolutely. Orkney is what I'd call "small-c conservative" - they've been voting Liberal for God knows how long, but I suspect it's at least in part to preserve the status quo. Also, in a place as small as that, everyone knows everyone else, so people tend to vote for the person rather than the party.
The Scottish Nationalists never made any headway there*, partly because the candidates they fielded tended to be complete chumps, but mostly because to an islander "Central Government" is of necessity going to be remote, and unlikely to understand the needs of island communities. To an Orcadian, it matters little whether that central government is based in Edinburgh, London or Timbuktu.
* In the referendum, Orkney was the joint highest "no" vote, at 67%.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I too was feeling I'd spent WaY too much time posting about what I like about where I live. I think for me it's about having spent too much time very unhappy in the country and very reminded of how easy it can be for a town to curl up and ignore everyone who is different. I'm sure cities do have similar social faults (different from the risks of living in a city) though I'm not sure what they are, but the faults of a city are too close to me to be so obvious.
What tendencies to cities have that are frustrating? I gather it's partially that cities tend to have the money, and ignore the smaller towns?
Partially that, but as I grew up with fields at the back of the garden I've always felt being in an environment where instead there's just more and more streets behind me and it's miles to the real world (yes, to me the natural world is real, the city artificial) to be claustrophobic. The other problems I have with cities is that they always seem to be noisy and grubby. Good honest cowshit I can cope with; litter, city grime and graffiti get me down.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gwai: What tendencies to cities have that are frustrating? I gather it's partially that cities tend to have the money, and ignore the smaller towns?
I guess one thing rural people dislike about cities are the traffic, the noise, the distance from nature ... But as some people on this thread already admitted, they like the easy access to facilities.
Looking more towards mentalities, the ignorance (or myopy) of cities towards small towns definitely seems to be a part of it.
There are other things that are strikingly similar to me in all parts of the world:- Rural people perceive urban people as overly talkative. I feel that there is definitely some truth to this, that in general rural people talk less and urban people talk more.
- Rural people are more 'closed': they won't tell you anything about themselves or open up to you until you really know them.
- Rural people see urban people as arrogant.
- Rural people tend to romantize their own honesty and see city folk as dishonest.
- Rural people see themselves as more hospitable than urban people.
I guess a lot of this has to do with the fact that if you live in city, closely surrounded by many people, you have to assert yourself more.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What tendencies to cities have that are frustrating?
For me, it's how impersonal they are. The sheer number of people reduces everyone to the status of "face in a crowd", or at best "member of a specific demographic".
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
You don't get that so much in the 'Burbs, IME, but in part I think that's because, having lived, worshipped and worked in the same area for over twenty years, you do get to know a lot of people through the often-interlocking fields of home, church and work. That of course has the downside of fostering a form of parochialism, which I have noticed a lot around here eg: Titchfield definitely isn't Fareham, which isn't Gosport, and neither Fareham nor Gosport are Portsmouth or Southampton*, the latter two having their fiercely rival football teams, etc; plus I know many people here who have lived all their lives in Fareham.
And, yes, I know the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data'
*As an example, I asked one of the first criminal clients I represented here in Fareham whether she was local, and she replied, "Oh no, I'm from Portchester." Portchester is less than three miles away which shows that, even in quite built-up areas, people can still, as The League of Gentlemen would put it, 'live locally'.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... in general rural people talk less and urban people talk more ...
You may be right (possibly in the sense that there are some "city types" who like to hear the sound of their own voice), but I think it depends on the situation.
Walk down the street of a village or small market town, and people will be talking to each other, calling greetings across the street or whatever; travel on the Tube in London and no-one will say anything to anyone else except the odd "excuse me" if they accidentally jostle you.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
no prophet wrote:
quote:
However, the conservatism about economics also means distrust of out-of-province corporations, which provides what could be seen as a socialist twist, except it isn't. Hence the largest corporate presence in most the Canadian prairies being the co-op, which means gas station, grocery stores, pharmacy, hardware. Owned by the people who own shares. Banking is done by credit unions, also share holder owned. This also accounts for the government owned Crown corporations which provide variously electric, natural gas, telephone, cable television, internet, cellular telephone, landline telephone, automobile insurance, house insurance. -- I don't think some of this fits with conceptions of conservatism and socialism in other places. But why would I buy anything from some out of province company which keeps it's profits out of province? Keep the ownership local. It is also found that nonlocal companies can't or won't provide rural services.
In 1930s Alberta, Premier Aberhart(aka "Bible Bill") started what essentially amounted to a government owned bank, after the courts invalidated the rest of his populist banking legislation.
This state-run financial institution has survived for decades under various governments, including some of the most right-wing ever seen in Canada. It's especially popular in rural areas, which have made it into one of the untouchable icons of Alberta politics.
And the funny thing is, the establishment of such a bank is something that would be considered way too radical, even for an NDP government, anywhere in Canada today.
ATB Financial
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
Looking at maps of UK parlimentary elections in recent years in general it is rural areas that tend to return Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs and Labour MPs tend to represent urban areas.
Certainly I grea up in a rural area where the Conservatives were thought well of even during the Thatcher years. It's an interesting question as to why this is so.
Is it to do with attitudes, or wealth, or more self sufficient communities? There is of course poverty in rural areas as well. Maybe the more progressive voices just somehow don't resonate with the rural population, either because their concerns are not addressed or they feel that they are not listened to, or that the issues that are being prioritised are not the ones that concern them particularly in rural areas.
Perhaps progressive politicians need to engage more with those in rural areas to hear their concerns and show that they have policies that will address those concerns. Otherwise they are just dismissed as city people who don't understand the ways and lives of people in the countryside.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
piglet: To an Orcadian, it matters little whether that central government is based in Edinburgh, London or Timbuktu.
I get that. Something similar happens in the Dutch province of Fryslân, which has a strong identity, in large part due to having an own language. It has a couple of islands who don't seem to share in this identity that much. Islanders are loyal in the first place to their island.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: For me, it's how impersonal they are. The sheer number of people reduces everyone to the status of "face in a crowd", or at best "member of a specific demographic".
At least in the Netherlands, people from the capital recognize 'provincials' (including me) easily by their accent.
quote:
piglet: You may be right (possibly in the sense that there are some "city types" who like to hear the sound of their own voice), but I think it depends on the situation.
You're right, I was thinking about 'talkative' in this sense.
quote:
Lucia: Perhaps progressive politicians need to engage more with those in rural areas to hear their concerns and show that they have policies that will address those concerns.
Exactly. I'd like very much for this to happen. I don't even think it's that hard.
Speaking for myself, I think I've incorporated a bit of 'urban' mentality over the years in that I've learned to assert myself better. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Lucia: Perhaps progressive politicians need to engage more with those in rural areas to hear their concerns and show that they have policies that will address those concerns.
Exactly. I'd like very much for this to happen. I don't even think it's that hard.
I think part of the problem is that there are too many issues where it becomes rural versus urban. For instance, would we get a decent transportation system in Chicago OR would downstate get whatever it was they got. Politicians have to vote with their region or they won't get re-elected, of course, so they are then labeled as against the other guys even if their politics are moderate.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gwai: I think part of the problem is that there are too many issues where it becomes rural versus urban. For instance, would we get a decent transportation system in Chicago OR would downstate get whatever it was they got. Politicians have to vote with their region or they won't get re-elected, of course, so they are then labeled as against the other guys even if their politics are moderate.
Ah yes, the distribution of funding between rural and urban areas can be a problem. And I guess this can be exacerbated in a districtal voting system.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I once had a discussion with a friend who had grown up in rural Montana before moving to Seattle. He commented that where he grew up, when you were walking and saw someone, stranger or not, you slowed down to say Hello. In the city people instead speed up to get past the stranger. My response was that this is crowd dynamics in the big city. If you and someone else are going past each other, you usually speed up to eliminate a possible traffic bottleneck. It's also true that most cities have a tempo for negotiating a crowd and usually the bigger the city, the faster the tempo. I had to learn to slow down walking in Seattle even though I'm completely unathletic.
The other observation is a New York one. I've heard a number of visitors talk about how they got lost and asked for help and were surprised about how friendly and helpful the locals are. In general, I think people are aloof by default in order to construct a small village around themselves. If you're a random passerby you get ignored. If you actually start a conversation, people notice that you are in their village. It's related to the fact that despite there being 10,000 restaurants in New York, people who live their usually have a habitual 10 or 20 that they go to most of the time and where they may know the staff. It's another aspect of constructing a small personal village in the midst of the megalopolis.
I suspect that for rural folk, the internet may provide a way to do the reverse.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think in England at least, the 'rude city types' varies according to a North-and-Midlands/South divide. Certainly I've found Manchester and Leeds to be extremely friendly, for instance, also Birmingham and Leicester. London, less so, but I think the stereotype of rude Londoners is overstated and is more about rudeness towards tourists.
I'm from Coventry, so in a city environment in striking distance from other cities. However my grandparents and parents were/are Caravan and Camping Club members, and we went away in the caravan several times a year to proper rural areas (not the really touristy bits as we were mostly on very basic district association rally sites). I loved it, I just couldn't live there. I love having museums, shops, coffee shops and cafes local and especially value good public transport since I can't drive. I also appreciate having a cathedral available, and a botanical garden or very good park. As an introvert I definitely make use of museums and cultural spaces as a 'time out' resource.
I currently live between Basingstoke and Reading (just inside the Hampshire side of the Hants/Berks border - the 'welcome to Berkshire' sign is in walking distance from my house) and they both seem a bit characterless compared to Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds etc - maybe a Southern thing?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Is it to do with attitudes, or wealth, or more self sufficient communities?
Could be. I grew up in farming country, and whilst we were not farmers, many of my friends were. Farmers - or at least, the ones I grew up around - did everything for themselves. It was rare that anyone would hire a tradesman, for example.
I think this kind of independent, self-reliant attitude tends to correlate with a desire for a more limited, less interventionist government that the political right claims to offer.
Of course, these farmers were also happily claiming government subsidies, and there are definite parallels with the "Get your government hands off my Medicare" signs...
[ 25. September 2014, 19:40: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've learned in basic sociology class is that farmers are naturally conservative because they perceive progressiveness as risk-taking. They always need the security of their next harvest, so they prefer to keep things the way they are. More generally, their connection to the land they inherited from their forefathers makes them more traditional than city-folk who might live in a rented house.
[tangent] Just remember, LeRoc, that on the Canadian prairies (which is what SPK was talking about) few of those farmers were on land they inherited from their forefathers. At most, their fathers. Because most of the land in question only went under plough in the 1880s and 1890s at the earliest. My own grandparents took over a farm on the Manitoba Saskatchewan border in 1932-3 because the owner couldn't pay his bills, the largest of which was owed to his blacksmith (my gf and his brother). The farmer, I think, had the farm from his father who had taken the land on a grant and was the first to plough. (My grandfather hadn't a clue how to farm but was blessed with a wife and an oldest son who had a clue.)
[/tangent]
John
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
In the case of the Prairie Provinces, "progressive" politics was all about risk-hedging, i.e. farm security, regulation of lenders, provision of crop insurance at accessible prices, and public medicare to take care of accident & sickness in an already financially strained farm family.
While the idea of the inherited family farm has more traction in Ontario which has been settled longer, even here it is getting more rare as farm families sell.
In North America farms are often rented out to other farmers if the owner can't or doesn't want to work his land for a time, and farm loans are ubiquitous. The idea of a self-sufficient farm family is a quaint idea that was never true even at the best of times.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The idea of a self-sufficient farm family is a quaint idea that was never true even at the best of times.
The suggestion is that this worked until 1930 with the terrible drought of the Dirty Thirties. One of my grandmothers-in-law was a Barr Colonist (Lloydminster, Northwest Territories: farm in what's now Alberta, house 14 feet inside what's now Saskatchewan). They actually hung on until 1940 when the second war came.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
John Holding: Just remember, LeRoc, that on the Canadian prairies (which is what SPK was talking about) few of those farmers were on land they inherited from their forefathers.
D'oh! Yes of course, thanks for reminding me. The history of emigrant farmers is fascinating (I'm not only saying this because a lot of them are Dutch), and it would be interesting to see if their mentality is different than those who've stayed on the same land for generations.
quote:
Sober Preacher's Kid: The idea of a self-sufficient farm family is a quaint idea that was never true even at the best of times.
With this, I agree.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
it's easy to be anonymous in a big city, which I appreciate. The kind of place where everyone knows each other (whether a town or a village) would be really stressful to me.
That part of it was certainly hellish growing up! I would go for a ride on my bicycle, and my mother would be able to track me by the phone calls my aunts made to tell her they'd seen me.
My partner and I are thinking about moving to where I grew up, partly because its soooooo much cheaper to live there (property is about half the cost it is in Wellington, and because there is so much primary industry food is also considerably less expensive), but also because that's where we can connect in with family for our old age. All 1500 of them.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
In Australia, we divide rural into two sections.... Rural AND rural remote.
As a minister, I have lived and worked in the inner- city, suburbia, small towns, and now, rural remote. I skipped rural altogether, graduating to the remote side of life pretty quickly. In fact, I moved from inner-city to rural remote a few years ago. Life became adventurous, fascinating, challenging... All at once.
Currently I live in a town of about two thousand. My nearest town is an hour away.... About four thousand there. My parish is five hours drive wide and fours hours long, mostly in fairly inaccessible mountains (snow, mud, wind, fire- depending on season, and dirt roads. Population three hundred).
My denomination had a special department of ministers, who specifically serve in rural remote parishes. There are about 20 of us. Some of my colleagues travel up to 900 kms between churches, or fly planes, so I am on the rather tamer side of rural remote.
We find that city folk don't really get rural remote, as we are too far away to understand. Jobs in many fields remain vacant as folk don't want to move too far from cities. Not quite such an issue for merely rural places.
Out here, everyone knows your name and everything else about you. Bothersome at times, but life- saving at others. If I stop my logo-emblazoned car for any reason, envy one stops to see if I am still alive...
Interesting mix of politics, income and educational level. Some very theologically- educated people, along every line of reason and emotion... People are in touch with tne bare bones of life, and death. Natural disaster is always only a day away. Humour is quick. Life is often touchingly funny... And sad.
I love my ministry.
The views are spectacular.
The people are quirky.
I am definitely rural remote now. I won't go back to tne big cities permanently every again.
I type this in a hotel, inner-city, and capital of the state at that. My vacation has been fun, but I look forward to returning to my own world tomorrow.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowen:
In Australia, we divide rural into two sections.... Rural AND rural remote.
.......
Currently I live in a town of about two thousand. My nearest town is an hour away.... About four thousand there.
Rowen. Is the town you live in not your nearest town? Are your numbers typoed?
I live in rural coastal. The wizardest town is about 3500. Only 60kms from a major city, but a long way from the state capital. Sydneysiders and the state politicians think NSW stands for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Queenslanders have similar problems. One described himslef as coming from the FBI - the Forgotten Buggers Inland.
Our town is a good place to live. In the main streets I am always meeting people I meet. But that was also true of the inner urban communities I have lived in that were part of capital cities.
Not sure that we will be able to stay here forever as the the health care facilities are not so good for oldies.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I too was feeling I'd spent WaY too much time posting about what I like about where I live. I think for me it's about having spent too much time very unhappy in the country and very reminded of how easy it can be for a town to curl up and ignore everyone who is different. I'm sure cities do have similar social faults (different from the risks of living in a city) though I'm not sure what they are, but the faults of a city are too close to me to be so obvious.
What tendencies to cities have that are frustrating? I gather it's partially that cities tend to have the money, and ignore the smaller towns?
Partially that, but as I grew up with fields at the back of the garden I've always felt being in an environment where instead there's just more and more streets behind me and it's miles to the real world (yes, to me the natural world is real, the city artificial) to be claustrophobic. The other problems I have with cities is that they always seem to be noisy and grubby. Good honest cowshit I can cope with; litter, city grime and graffiti get me down.
See, I think my love of the rural is part of an escape from my upbringing on a rough estate without nature, just as my love of the city brings me the culture (museums, galleries, old buildings) that my youth never had. I escaped my upbringing and emerged myself in other experiences.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
See, thing is, I don't particularly associate old buildings and museums with cities. The old buildings I love best are mostly not in cities - castles, ruined abbeys etc. etc. Museums exist elsewhere - rather enjoyed the one at Whitby only last month. Galleries I can't speak for because they don't interest me.
I like taking the kids to the natural history museum from time to time but it doesn't really save the city for me; there's no earthly reason it couldn't be somewhere other than South Kensington; it's mere historical accident. I rather wish it wasn't because it makes it a complete pain in the arse to get to.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowen:
In Australia, we divide rural into two sections.... Rural AND rural remote.
.......
Currently I live in a town of about two thousand. My nearest town is an hour away.... About four thousand there.
Rowen. Is the town you live in not your nearest town? Are your numbers typoed?
I live in rural coastal. The wizardest town is about 3500. Only 60kms from a major city, but a long way from the state capital. Sydneysiders and the state politicians think NSW stands for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Queenslanders have similar problems. One described himslef as coming from the FBI - the Forgotten Buggers Inland.
Our town is a good place to live. In the main streets I am always meeting people I meet. But that was also true of the inner urban communities I have lived in that were part of capital cities.
Not sure that we will be able to stay here forever as the the health care facilities are not so good for oldies.
Oops, I live in my town, but the next place is an hour away. Should have said that. At home, we all dream of big city groceries, or evn of bigger town groceries.... All that choice.
Today, on vacation in tne capital city, taxi drivers seem amazed that sensible folk , like me, could live "out there" and be happy.
2000 in my home town.... But they get bigger the further down the line.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
See, thing is, I don't particularly associate old buildings and museums with cities. The old buildings I love best are mostly not in cities - castles, ruined abbeys etc. etc. Museums exist elsewhere - rather enjoyed the one at Whitby only last month. Galleries I can't speak for because they don't interest me.
I like taking the kids to the natural history museum from time to time but it doesn't really save the city for me; there's no earthly reason it couldn't be somewhere other than South Kensington; it's mere historical accident. I rather wish it wasn't because it makes it a complete pain in the arse to get to.
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
And it doesn't have to be London - there are lots of lovely cities like Manchester or Birmingham with plenty of cultural activities. Living in a cultureless wasteland at the moment is really difficult.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Nirthampton a cultureless wasteland? Is outrage! I mean, you've got the Henry Moore and the Graham Sutherland at St Matthew's, and a bit of Charles Rennie Mackintosh, and then, er, the Express Lift Tower, and, um...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nirthampton a cultureless wasteland? Is outrage! I mean, you've got the Henry Moore and the Graham Sutherland at St Matthew's, and a bit of Charles Rennie Mackintosh, and then, er, the Express Lift Tower, and, um...
Definitely not referring to Northampton as a cultureless wasteland I no longer live there. As I said upthread, I now live between Reading and Basingstoke, near Aldermaston. There are some pockets of interest, like some nice pubs and the National Needlework Archives, plus of course Greenham Common, but it's not a massively interesting area of Hants/Berks - at least not the more suburban side of it. I mean I have Reading for shopping, cinema etc but it's a bit soulless.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Why does one have to have a city in order to be entertained? I last, at best, about three hours in a downtown area - nothing to do but shop (unless you have business in a bland office box), and you have to pay rent to occupy any space for a time. Might as well put parking meters on every available space, and give food and beer away free.
Having grown up on the Prairies, I need a wide space around me for at least a bit of every day. Fortunately there is diked marshland here which gives enough vista, and is quiet enough for my rather ADD dog (as if I didn't have the same affliction!) Between the woods, the open land and the neighbourly thing of having someone to talk to whenever one needs, I am much happier in the village than anywhere else.
I know this doesn't work for everyone.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why does one have to have a city in order to be entertained? I last, at best, about three hours in a downtown area - nothing to do but shop (unless you have business in a bland office box), and you have to pay rent to occupy any space for a time. Might as well put parking meters on every available space, and give food and beer away free.
Having grown up on the Prairies, I need a wide space around me for at least a bit of every day. Fortunately there is diked marshland here which gives enough vista, and is quiet enough for my rather ADD dog (as if I didn't have the same affliction!) Between the woods, the open land and the neighbourly thing of having someone to talk to whenever one needs, I am much happier in the village than anywhere else.
I know this doesn't work for everyone.
Shopping provides plenty of entertainment for me, depending on the shops - I could spend hours in a good department store beauty hall. Not quite sure what you mean by paying rent to occupy any space for a time - do you mean for car parking? I can't drive so would be using the bus/other public transport. Obviously, this is not applicable in the US in the same way it is here. Even in the fairly rural area I live in, there's a bus to the nearest big town every 20 minutes or so.
I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
I divided my time between four capital cities as a child and visited a lot of different countries. Coming to live in an English suburb was difficult; I never liked it and when I got to Oxford I never moved back.
Thse days I live on the edge of the countryside and - times change. I've had my fill of museums, though not of galleries; I don't miss films or the cinema. I don't care so much for the hard grey pavements, gritty breezes, streets redolent from the night before, hordes of tourists, and expensive prices: I've done all that.
At first I hated being stuck out in the sticks. But since then, I've learnt to appreciate the slower pace of life in the countryside and to enjoy the rhythm of the changing seasons. The land is an open book, there to be read, changing day by day. It has treasures and secrets, if you look, and are willing to befriend it.
My most enduring memories are of long, winding country roads, dappled with sunlight; fields with spring lambs taking their first wobbly steps in this new, cold spring world; country pubs with real fires; pretty little cottages; the incredible, subtle palette of winter, and the explosion of colour and life that is summer. The way a landscape, glimpsed through gaps in hedges or over old stone walls, can sometimes be lovely. The fun of country shows, customs and festivals, farmers' markets, friendly people, the funfairs of the autumn, the enjoyment of fruit picking, and if you want it, the pleasure of exploring the National Trust properties and the art collections that aren't held in cities (you must have heard of Compton Verney, for one). You can always get tea/coffee somewhere and often some extremely good homemade cakes. We do all right in the provinces.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
And it doesn't have to be London - there are lots of lovely cities like Manchester or Birmingham with plenty of cultural activities. Living in a cultureless wasteland at the moment is really difficult.
Nature is endlessly fascinating (to me) and always changing. The weather, the plants and animals, the waterflow patterns.
There's growing stuff, cooking, sewing. Getting together with others to trade apples for eggs or somesuch. And church, and sewing circles and book clubs and community theater and hunting clubs and game night. Etc. What we in the US would call high culture isn't the only kind of culture.
quote:
Shopping provides plenty of entertainment for me, depending on the shops - I could spend hours in a good department store beauty hall.
Ah. There's the difference between us. I think shopping is an activity to be avoided until absolutely necessary.
quote:
I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city.
Walk for hours enjoying the scenery without worrying about running into another human being who may or may not be dangerous or friendly or angry or confusing in some way shape or form.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Nature is endlessly fascinating (to me) and always changing. The weather, the plants and animals, the waterflow patterns.
There's growing stuff, cooking, sewing. Getting together with others to trade apples for eggs or somesuch. And church, and sewing circles and book clubs and community theater and hunting clubs and game night. Etc. What we in the US would call high culture isn't the only kind of culture.
Building stuff, raising animals, participating in community events...
I wish I was rural. Every time I get free time, I go to the country. One of my favorite vacations was when I stayed in a small coastal town on the weekend they had their Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The town was so small that pretty much everyone who lived there was gathered around that tree.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nirthampton a cultureless wasteland? Is outrage! I mean, you've got the Henry Moore and the Graham Sutherland at St Matthew's, and a bit of Charles Rennie Mackintosh, and then, er, the Express Lift Tower, and, um...
Definitely not referring to Northampton as a cultureless wasteland I no longer live there. As I said upthread, I now live between Reading and Basingstoke, near Aldermaston. There are some pockets of interest, like some nice pubs and the National Needlework Archives, plus of course Greenham Common, but it's not a massively interesting area of Hants/Berks - at least not the more suburban side of it. I mean I have Reading for shopping, cinema etc but it's a bit soulless.
Oh, right I see! Yes, quite. Stanley Spencers at Cookham and Burghclere but otherwise...
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city.
I am involved in a small church community that actually functions well as a social entity, as well as the more obvious "church" function; I enjoy being outside walking (with or without the dog) and have a variety of landscapes to walk in; I have enough space for a large woodworking shop in my basement, with direct outside access (helpful when you build boats!); my wife and I enjoy gardening in our half-acre; I volunteer at the local high school, without all the tiresome security issues (I have been involved there for 43 years now, and know several generations of people as a result); there is a choice of 4 coffee/conversation places within a mile or so; the list goes on.
Obviously, having worked/lived in the same place for 43 years (and the same house for 31 of those) makes a difference: I am no longer entertained by crowds of passive wanderers who do not know each other, or, for that matter, crowds of pub/club goers who have to be sure that they are noticed. (One of my daughters lives downtown in Toronto, and I do notice the near-hysteria level of anxiety displayed amongst her acquaintances.)
And I don't have to deal with traffic most of the time. Quiet is good.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The anonymity of city life can be positive. There are plenty of networks for socialising but you don't have to spend your whole life in the company of the same people. A nephew of mine (now 40) who has spent his whole life in the same village has his private life and relationships discussed in every pub and shop counter. Not because they are in any way bizarre or unconventional, just that living in a village is like living on the set of a soap opera.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's very true. And you can get both experiences at the same time by living as part of a small ethnic community in a big city. Soap opera in real life all week, then go to the opera on Saturday.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
I go to big cities occasionally. The shops are horrifying... Malls are bigger, both physically and population-wise than my whole town. The noise and crowds are overwhelming. Traffic in cities is baaaaaaddddd. Cities smell. Where are the stars?
I loved in huge cities most of my life, but never noticed any of the above. But not now.
In rural Australia, there are different things to do and be. Church life matters. Community activities and groups become important. Hobbies, walks, rural art galleries and museums, beaches, friends....
I wouldn't go back now.
I find plenty of ways to fill in my time.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
See, thing is, I don't particularly associate old buildings and museums with cities. The old buildings I love best are mostly not in cities - castles, ruined abbeys etc. etc. Museums exist elsewhere - rather enjoyed the one at Whitby only last month. Galleries I can't speak for because they don't interest me.
I like taking the kids to the natural history museum from time to time but it doesn't really save the city for me; there's no earthly reason it couldn't be somewhere other than South Kensington; it's mere historical accident. I rather wish it wasn't because it makes it a complete pain in the arse to get to.
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
And it doesn't have to be London - there are lots of lovely cities like Manchester or Birmingham with plenty of cultural activities. Living in a cultureless wasteland at the moment is really difficult.
Nope. Not bored at all. The museums, cinemas etc. are available on the end of a bus/train/cycle.
What do I do for fun? Pint or three down the local pub (they exist out in the sticks, you know. And generally less noisy and full of pissheads than too many city pubs). Walking. Cycling - neither much fun in the city. The guitar plays just the same out here as it would in the centre of Sheffield.
You ask "I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city." - the answer is that I don't think I do anything for fun that's better in a city. And as I've already mentioned, cycling and walking would be a lot worse. What on earth is "people watching"?
My kids are 6, 7 and 10. They can play safely unsupervised outside here.
[ 29. September 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add that not living in a city doesn't mean never visiting one. We yokels do go to the cinema you know. We just don't feel the need to live next to it.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's all relative anyway. Having moved back to one of the UK's larger cities after 11 years in London, the positive differences are [1] a less frenetic pace of life; [2] a sense of being part of the whole rather than a small unit of an incomprehensible vastness; [3] while 'cultural' events, exhibitions, plays etc are plentiful there are not so many of them that you despair of ever keeping up; [4] it doesn't take a whole day to get from one end of the city to the other.
Visiting London now, I notice a vibrancy and high-voltage charge about the place which I miss. I miss too the much greater ethnic and cultural mix. But it is much more hard work than living in a smaller and more laid-back community.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I should add that not living in a city doesn't mean never visiting one. We yokels do go to the cinema you know. We just don't feel the need to live next to it.
How do you get there though? The main reason I would never live in the country is the lack of frequent (or even any) public transport.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think there's a matter of potatoes and potahtoes as well. What you call "vibrancy" and "high voltage charge", I might call "noise" and "confusing, threatening and anxiety-inducing."
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Jade Constable quote:
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
Once I'd recovered from my helpless laughter I copied this to discuss with the offspring since they've spent all their lives in a village within striking distance of a small country town: their answers...
Depending on the weather they meet up with friends for Barbeques, rugby; there's the hockey and cricket clubs, not to mention tennis. If they feel the need for more there's fishing, plus we're all really good at blackberrying and fruit scrumping.
The coast is only a short drive away so we sail, surf and wake-board and we have sea kayaks, plus the ordinary delights of the beach (I swim throughout the year unless it gets really cold).
As children they built camps at the bottom of the garden, dammed streams, dug for gold (alas without success), played Pooh-sticks.
With the rest of the family being big city dwellers they've had plenty of opportunity to experience the joys of city life and convenience; their verdict is that its fine if you want to do something but a terrible environment if you just want to do nothing.
And as I remind them, there's always the gardening to help with if they really don't know what to do with their time ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I should add that not living in a city doesn't mean never visiting one. We yokels do go to the cinema you know. We just don't feel the need to live next to it.
How do you get there though? The main reason I would never live in the country is the lack of frequent (or even any) public transport.
Bike, taxi, car... It's not like I go very often, perhaps once a year for a film I want to see, perhaps twice more for films one or more of the kids wants to see. And I only live three miles from it. The shack the Dursleys row to in the first Harry Potter film isn't the only alternative to living virtually on Picadilly Circus.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Well I live well over three miles from the city centre. But transport is frequent (train and bus) and - for me, oldie - free. I wouldn't fancy cycling on city roads but having seen the way some country folk drive I'd be even less keen to do it there. Car and taxi are both expensive, polluting and environment destroying.
But people are different. And your children probably enjoy country life in a way that I can't see ours, when they were younger, ever really doing.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Regardless of preference, aren't cities the future? How else are increasing numbers of people going to be able to make the most efficient use of scarce resources, as well as looking after the countryside we have left?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Regardless of preference, aren't cities the future? How else are increasing numbers of people going to be able to make the most efficient use of scarce resources, as well as looking after the countryside we have left?
Perhaps the problem there is the "increasing numbers of people" part? I doubt it's a coincidence that rural constituencies are more likely to return MPs from parties that tend to be less keen on immigration.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Regardless of preference, aren't cities the future? How else are increasing numbers of people going to be able to make the most efficient use of scarce resources, as well as looking after the countryside we have left?
Probably. Doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... they got lost [in New York] and asked for help and were surprised about how friendly and helpful the locals are ...
I'll go along with that: I tripped and fell over a paving-stone in New York and was pleasantly surprised when a passing gentleman helped me up and asked if I was all right.
The same goes for Glasgow: while standing at a junction consulting a street-map, a chap stopped and asked where I was looking for and promptly gave me directions.
These may be isolated exceptions, but they slightly change one's perceptions of big-city unfriendliness.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable quote:
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
Once I'd recovered from my helpless laughter I copied this to discuss with the offspring since they've spent all their lives in a village within striking distance of a small country town: their answers...
Depending on the weather they meet up with friends for Barbeques, rugby; there's the hockey and cricket clubs, not to mention tennis. If they feel the need for more there's fishing, plus we're all really good at blackberrying and fruit scrumping.
The coast is only a short drive away so we sail, surf and wake-board and we have sea kayaks, plus the ordinary delights of the beach (I swim throughout the year unless it gets really cold).
As children they built camps at the bottom of the garden, dammed streams, dug for gold (alas without success), played Pooh-sticks.
With the rest of the family being big city dwellers they've had plenty of opportunity to experience the joys of city life and convenience; their verdict is that its fine if you want to do something but a terrible environment if you just want to do nothing.
And as I remind them, there's always the gardening to help with if they really don't know what to do with their time ...
So mostly sport then? I have no interest in any of those things (and can't swim or ride a bike anyway - very poor hand-eye coordination). If you're not the outdoorsy type then it doesn't seem like there's much to do.
Also it seems difficult to live in the country without being able to drive - certainly I find living here (semi-rural) difficult because of that.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
And it doesn't have to be London - there are lots of lovely cities like Manchester or Birmingham with plenty of cultural activities. Living in a cultureless wasteland at the moment is really difficult.
Nature is endlessly fascinating (to me) and always changing. The weather, the plants and animals, the waterflow patterns.
There's growing stuff, cooking, sewing. Getting together with others to trade apples for eggs or somesuch. And church, and sewing circles and book clubs and community theater and hunting clubs and game night. Etc. What we in the US would call high culture isn't the only kind of culture.
quote:
Shopping provides plenty of entertainment for me, depending on the shops - I could spend hours in a good department store beauty hall.
Ah. There's the difference between us. I think shopping is an activity to be avoided until absolutely necessary.
quote:
I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city.
Walk for hours enjoying the scenery without worrying about running into another human being who may or may not be dangerous or friendly or angry or confusing in some way shape or form.
But all those things are doable in a city! Nature exists in cities (foxes, hedgehogs, sparrowhawks etc) and people have allotments and chickens. The only thing on your list that isn't done in cities in the UK is hunting - in fact I think you're more likely to find those things in a city here.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
See, thing is, I don't particularly associate old buildings and museums with cities. The old buildings I love best are mostly not in cities - castles, ruined abbeys etc. etc. Museums exist elsewhere - rather enjoyed the one at Whitby only last month. Galleries I can't speak for because they don't interest me.
I like taking the kids to the natural history museum from time to time but it doesn't really save the city for me; there's no earthly reason it couldn't be somewhere other than South Kensington; it's mere historical accident. I rather wish it wasn't because it makes it a complete pain in the arse to get to.
But don't you get really bored? I mean I guess in the country kids can entertain themselves and as a childfree person am not bothered by whether kids are entertained by where I live, but living in some kind of cultureless nothingness with no galleries or museums or cinemas or coffee shops for people watching or botanical gardens etc etc just sounds so boring to me. I mean, what do you do for fun? If I lived in the country I'd have my own books, films etc but there'd be nothing for me to do outside my own home.
And it doesn't have to be London - there are lots of lovely cities like Manchester or Birmingham with plenty of cultural activities. Living in a cultureless wasteland at the moment is really difficult.
Nope. Not bored at all. The museums, cinemas etc. are available on the end of a bus/train/cycle.
What do I do for fun? Pint or three down the local pub (they exist out in the sticks, you know. And generally less noisy and full of pissheads than too many city pubs). Walking. Cycling - neither much fun in the city. The guitar plays just the same out here as it would in the centre of Sheffield.
You ask "I am interested to know what you do for fun/hobbies that's not doable in a town or city." - the answer is that I don't think I do anything for fun that's better in a city. And as I've already mentioned, cycling and walking would be a lot worse. What on earth is "people watching"?
My kids are 6, 7 and 10. They can play safely unsupervised outside here.
Pubs I'll grant you. I can't ride a bike so not applicable to me, but I can also see that that's much better outside of cities. There are plenty of interesting walks within cities though.
People watching is what it sounds like - watching people! It's just fun imagining what people are up to and what their lives are like. My favourite spot for it is in the Waterstones opposite the Bullring in Birmingham - floor to ceiling glass windows, and there's a gap in front of the lift which gives an uninterrupted view. Last time I was there, there was a great busker outside too - fab bit of time out in the city.
Forgot to say this in answer to L'Organist but it fits in well here too - there are plenty of areas in cities where you can do just nothing. Parks, cemeteries (the one in the Jewellery Quarter is a nice one with a good view of the city, or of course the Magnificent Seven across London, the most famous of which is Highgate), less-used areas of museums and galleries, libraries, the aviary in London Zoo. As an introvert who loves cities, you find them all out.
Also UK cities that aren't London are very different to London, and don't have the manic edge that it has.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all those things are doable in a city! Nature exists in cities (foxes, hedgehogs, sparrowhawks etc)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Of course there is some nature in a city, but the difference, both in terms of quality and quantity, is huge.
You're trying to interest a gentleman from Newcastle in this interesting kind of black combustible rock you've found.
Cities smell. They are crowded, noisy, dirty, and full of people (it takes real effort to find somewhere out of sight or earshot of people in cities.)
Some people like the crowds. Apparently, you like staring at other people and guessing what they're doing. I'd rather watch the grass grow.
Some people aren't so keen on the large crowds, but put up with them because they like the museums, the galleries, the clubs catering to niche interests or the anonymity.
Some people are happier in the country, and don't think the "culture" in cities is worth it.
Yes, country people are either complete recluses or "outdoorsy". The countryside is outdoors. If you go to the country and stay inside buildings all the time, you're missing the point.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
He's right. I lived for a few years near the centre of Sheffield (not London - nearest I've been to living in London was living in Watford. Close enough. I have the remaining dodgy marbles I still have because I've never lived there....). We moved, before we had children, because:
1. We were fed up of getting back after a few days away and wondering if this time the burglars had managed to get in;
2. Having to drive for half an hour before getting somewhere for a nice walk. No, I do not find walking in cities at all interesting. Walking involves open moors, steep mountain slopes, river banks with cows going moo and sheep going baa, and woods that aren't full of burnt-out Vauxhall Novas;
3. When I go to the pub I prefer to be able to sit down and not have to queue for ages to get served;
4. Probably most significant, and germane to the OP here, I grew up in a village three miles from the nearest town. I know how to be a child in a village, because I was one. I can therefore help my children be children in a village. I have no idea how to be a child in the inner city, and no idea how to help mine if they grew up in one.
There's a perfectly good railway station at the bottom of the hill for the rare occasions we need Sheffield now. I have to work there, unfortunately; not the hour each way bike ride I'd choose, but the home half of it's pleasantly rural.
[ 29. September 2014, 15:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add I'm not into sports either. There's plenty to do without having to be able to hit or kick balls and all that stuff. That's as alien to me as sitting in a café watching people.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
I've also lived in Watford, Carl..also Chesham, London, Norfolk, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, the middle of no-where in the Free State, Lesotho and for the past 17 years, Johannesburg. I've enjoyed them all in different ways and have been happy to accept the negatives as well as the positives.
I do get irritated by magazines that glamorise country living when people are struggling to survive huge distances from their markets and pay so much more than city dwellers do in the shops without the choice. The country can have everything you need but nothing you want. Everyone knowing your business can be a huge problem! Everyone knows she's pregnant and by whom at the other end of the village before she's left the doctor's surgery!
The disadvantages of city life are well-known an d particularly the violent city I live in but there is an energy about a cosmopolitan city that is quite seductive.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all those things are doable in a city! Nature exists in cities (foxes, hedgehogs, sparrowhawks etc)
Of course there is some nature in a city, but the difference, both in terms of quality and quantity, is huge.
You're trying to interest a gentleman from Newcastle in this interesting kind of black combustible rock you've found.
Cities smell. They are crowded, noisy, dirty, and full of people (it takes real effort to find somewhere out of sight or earshot of people in cities.)
Some people like the crowds. Apparently, you like staring at other people and guessing what they're doing. I'd rather watch the grass grow.
Some people aren't so keen on the large crowds, but put up with them because they like the museums, the galleries, the clubs catering to niche interests or the anonymity.
Some people are happier in the country, and don't think the "culture" in cities is worth it.
Yes, country people are either complete recluses or "outdoorsy". The countryside is outdoors. If you go to the country and stay inside buildings all the time, you're missing the point.
Well no, it's not the crowds I like as such, and there's loads of places in cities that aren't crowded. You don't have to be in a crowded place to people-watch - when I'm in Waterstones I'm not in a crowded place, I'm just watching the more crowded place.
And not all parts of cities are noisy, crowded, dirty and full of people - I mean you couldn't say that about Highgate Cemetery could you?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He's right. I lived for a few years near the centre of Sheffield (not London - nearest I've been to living in London was living in Watford. Close enough. I have the remaining dodgy marbles I still have because I've never lived there....). We moved, before we had children, because:
1. We were fed up of getting back after a few days away and wondering if this time the burglars had managed to get in;
2. Having to drive for half an hour before getting somewhere for a nice walk. No, I do not find walking in cities at all interesting. Walking involves open moors, steep mountain slopes, river banks with cows going moo and sheep going baa, and woods that aren't full of burnt-out Vauxhall Novas;
3. When I go to the pub I prefer to be able to sit down and not have to queue for ages to get served;
4. Probably most significant, and germane to the OP here, I grew up in a village three miles from the nearest town. I know how to be a child in a village, because I was one. I can therefore help my children be children in a village. I have no idea how to be a child in the inner city, and no idea how to help mine if they grew up in one.
There's a perfectly good railway station at the bottom of the hill for the rare occasions we need Sheffield now. I have to work there, unfortunately; not the hour each way bike ride I'd choose, but the home half of it's pleasantly rural.
In fairness - I lived near the centre of Coventry until I was 17, and we were never broken into and I certainly don't recognise the woods full of burnt-out cars. There was a small bit of woodland by my secondary school and it was perfectly safe and pretty crime-free (afaik anyway). Stealing horses and farm equipment seems to be reasonably common in the fairly rural area I live in now - crime still exists in the countryside, it's just different crime.
It's not that I don't enjoy the countryside, not at all - I've said elsewhere on the thread about my happy holiday memories. However as an introvert I find it far easier to hide and be anonymous in the city - I feel alone in an exposed and anxiety-inducing way in the countryside.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well no, it's not the crowds I like as such, and there's loads of places in cities that aren't crowded. You don't have to be in a crowded place to people-watch - when I'm in Waterstones I'm not in a crowded place, I'm just watching the more crowded place.
As far as I'm concerned, if I can see the crowd, I'm in the crowd. The fact that nobody is actually jostling my elbow isn't very relevant - they're all within reach. The only time this becomes less true is if I am at the top of a very tall building, watching crowds of people scurrying around below. At that remove, they are more like ants than people, and so don't feel like a crowd.
quote:
And not all parts of cities are noisy, crowded, dirty and full of people - I mean you couldn't say that about Highgate Cemetery could you?
There's a "full of people" quip in there just begging to be let out.
I've never been to Highgate Cemetery. It appears to basically be a city park that charges admission fees and happens to have some graves. But I'm not sure that "cities aren't all noisy and crowded because we've got this cemetery" is a winning argument.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well no, it's not the crowds I like as such, and there's loads of places in cities that aren't crowded. You don't have to be in a crowded place to people-watch - when I'm in Waterstones I'm not in a crowded place, I'm just watching the more crowded place.
As far as I'm concerned, if I can see the crowd, I'm in the crowd. The fact that nobody is actually jostling my elbow isn't very relevant - they're all within reach. The only time this becomes less true is if I am at the top of a very tall building, watching crowds of people scurrying around below. At that remove, they are more like ants than people, and so don't feel like a crowd.
quote:
And not all parts of cities are noisy, crowded, dirty and full of people - I mean you couldn't say that about Highgate Cemetery could you?
There's a "full of people" quip in there just begging to be let out.
I've never been to Highgate Cemetery. It appears to basically be a city park that charges admission fees and happens to have some graves. But I'm not sure that "cities aren't all noisy and crowded because we've got this cemetery" is a winning argument.
Highgate Cemetery is just an example (it's one of the Magnificent Seven landscaped cemeteries around London). There are many spots in a city that aren't crowded or dirty or noisy. Interesting cemeteries, libraries, lesser-known parks etc etc.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are many spots in a city that aren't crowded or dirty or noisy. Interesting cemeteries, libraries, lesser-known parks etc etc.
I can't help thinking that this is a little like claiming that some small rural town is "diverse" because Mr. Wong and his family have opened a restaurant.
I'm sure isolated spots of peace and cleanliness are lovely, but they are isolated spots.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
These parks and cemeteries are unto real countryside as a hamburger is unto filet mignon; fine as far as they go, but no substitute.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all those things are doable in a city! Nature exists in cities (foxes, hedgehogs, sparrowhawks etc) and people have allotments and chickens. The only thing on your list that isn't done in cities in the UK is hunting - in fact I think you're more likely to find those things in a city here.
I second LC's laughter.
You have to remember that some of us view the existence of another person within our sight or hearing as 'crowded' (us being the misanthropes that we are).
Yes, there is a certain amount of wildlife in a city, but are you ever going to randomly encounter a bear some random day? Hear the coyote howling in the middle of the night?
Also, European cities are very different from American cities (and American cities are different from one another). Our zoning laws prohibit a lot of things. I mean, I suppose theoretically you could try to keep chickens or rabbits inside your apartment but your landlord would probably kick you out. Even people who own land are frequently prohibited from keeping them outside by various ordinances. And forget about sheep or cows or goats or bees or other foodstuffs.
If you're lucky you might have a balcony and/or be able to install a windowbox and/or get the kind of light in your apartment that allows you to grow some herbs and maybe a tomato plant or something. But you just can't do the kind of gardening you can in the country.
In the country as long as you're able-bodied and willing to work you'll never starve. In the city (in the US), that's only true if the community holds periodic food drives. You have to rely so much on other people and then hope that you can afford what they're charging you just to get the basic necessities of food and water.
And some of us can't really afford the museums and theater and shops and the kind of high culture you're talking about (without taking advantage of the days when the powers that be declare that something is free and open to the public: in which case, said event is always going to be spectacularly crowded).
Mind you, I currently live in a city. But I'm not sure what I would do if I couldn't occasionally get away.
(Though what I'd like to do is win the lottery and build a small house off-grid.)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
My best friend in all the world lives in a trailer park in a small town in the interior. The biggest difference I notice between his small town and my big city? MONEY. Lots and lots of money.
Yes, there are a few wealthy people that live in the country (though not usually full-time), and those working in certain rural activities can make good money. And there are people in my city who are desperately poor, even destitute, and the cost of living, especially housing, is higher. However, every time I return to the city, I'm struck by how RICH most city dwellers seem in comparison to the ordinary folks in the country.
Country folk have to do without many services and amenities, and I'm not talking about museums or galleries, I mean things like medical specialists and post-secondary education and high-speed internet and a mechanic who can fix your late-model car. If you have a disability, or special needs, country life can pose real challenges. In the country, you need a car - at least in the North American countryside. I've lived in my city for over thirty years and never owned a car.
Cities are full of rich people. And that, as they say, has made all the difference.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... Yes, there is a certain amount of wildlife in a city, but are you ever going to randomly encounter a bear some random day? ...
Yes. Bears visit the tri-cities regularly.
Edited because I can't type
[ 30. September 2014, 01:03: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Country folk have to do without many services and amenities, and I'm not talking about museums or galleries, I mean things like medical specialists and post-secondary education and high-speed internet and a mechanic who can fix your late-model car.
Doing without a medical specialist? Who are you, the Queen of England, going to a medic for anything (and if you're not how are you paying for it?) Take some folk remedies; you know the doctors are paid by the drug companies to experiment on you anyway, so it's not like it's a risk you're not already taking by being alive.
And what is this late-model car of which you speak? Because we can fix your rusted-out 1990's jaloppy, but we're not going to be able to figure out (or have the after-market parts) to fix your 2014 BMW. That's just how it goes.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Hm, that's exactly what they told me in the 90's about 1970's rusted out jalopies.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
I think we probably have to recognise that "out in the country" can mean very different things in different countries! In most of Britain even in a rural area you are not that far from towns and amenities. I suspect in the USA, Canada, Australia "out in the country" can mean being much more isolated.
Also the comments about rich and poor in country and cities. In the UK people with the money to do so often move out of cities to the countryside. There are poorer people in the countryside, usually long term residents. But things like social housing are much thinner on the ground in the English countryside so people who are in need of that often move to the nearest town, and in my experience every old house in the village that I grew up in that becomes available is normally bought up by a developer, who knocks it down and replaces it with a large house that they can market for half a million pounds. Overtime this tends to significantly change the balance of richer to poorer in the population...
[ 30. September 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But all those things are doable in a city! Nature exists in cities (foxes, hedgehogs, sparrowhawks etc) and people have allotments and chickens. The only thing on your list that isn't done in cities in the UK is hunting - in fact I think you're more likely to find those things in a city here.
I second LC's laughter.
You have to remember that some of us view the existence of another person within our sight or hearing as 'crowded' (us being the misanthropes that we are).
Yes, there is a certain amount of wildlife in a city, but are you ever going to randomly encounter a bear some random day? Hear the coyote howling in the middle of the night?
Also, European cities are very different from American cities (and American cities are different from one another). Our zoning laws prohibit a lot of things. I mean, I suppose theoretically you could try to keep chickens or rabbits inside your apartment but your landlord would probably kick you out. Even people who own land are frequently prohibited from keeping them outside by various ordinances. And forget about sheep or cows or goats or bees or other foodstuffs.
If you're lucky you might have a balcony and/or be able to install a windowbox and/or get the kind of light in your apartment that allows you to grow some herbs and maybe a tomato plant or something. But you just can't do the kind of gardening you can in the country.
In the country as long as you're able-bodied and willing to work you'll never starve. In the city (in the US), that's only true if the community holds periodic food drives. You have to rely so much on other people and then hope that you can afford what they're charging you just to get the basic necessities of food and water.
And some of us can't really afford the museums and theater and shops and the kind of high culture you're talking about (without taking advantage of the days when the powers that be declare that something is free and open to the public: in which case, said event is always going to be spectacularly crowded).
Mind you, I currently live in a city. But I'm not sure what I would do if I couldn't occasionally get away.
(Though what I'd like to do is win the lottery and build a small house off-grid.)
Oh sure, I appreciate that it's different in the US - for example our museums and galleries are mostly free (you're more likely to have to pay to get into a cathedral), and all towns and cities have areas with allotments. You can live in most cities (probably not London unless you are extremely rich) and have room in the garden for some chickens - obviously nobody would keep chickens or rabbits indoors (unless it's just a pet indoor rabbit or two) because that would be cruel.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also (I missed the edit window) thanks to the Enclosure Act of 17 hundred and something, only landowners and those with their permission can hunt game in the UK - historically it's only something the rich could do, poor people were often arrested for poaching a rabbit or a pheasant. You really can starve in the UK countryside - obviously people in the countryside can still get benefits and so on, but there's not nearly the same diversity of wild food available.
And you know, no bears!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade Constable: quote:
...our museums and galleries are mostly free...
Only the big national museums are free, and this state of affairs is unlikely to continue indefinitely.
In York we have the following:
National Railway Museum - free, because it's one of the few national museums outside London
Yorkshire Museum - £7.50 for adults
York Castle Museum - £9.50 for adults
Art Gallery - currently closed for redevelopment, usually free
Minster - £10 for adults (though if you say you're going to a service they let you in free)
Clifford's Tower - £4.30 for adults
The Yorkshire Museum and Castle Museum are free to residents of York who have a valid York Card.
In addition to the above there are a lot of smaller museums (such as the Richard III museum and the Treasurer's House). They all charge entrance fees too, even to York residents.
I don't know where you got this idea that all British museums are free, but it's not true. In the biggest tourist trap in Yorkshire we have a grand total of two museums that are free to everybody (if you count the art gallery), plus a couple more that are free to residents. All the others charge admission fees.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot Jorvik. £9.95 for an adult ticket, unless you wish to buy a combined ticket that lets you into the other small museums run by the same people (Barley Hall, DIG, etc.) Personally I wouldn't bother.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Yes, there are a few wealthy people that live in the country (though not usually full-time), and those working in certain rural activities can make good money. And there are people in my city who are desperately poor, even destitute, and the cost of living, especially housing, is higher. However, every time I return to the city, I'm struck by how RICH most city dwellers seem in comparison to the ordinary folks in the country.
Another vast pond difference. Most poor people are priced out of the British (or at least English) countryside while wealthy urban professionals buy up their farmhouses and cottages. Depending on how close a village is to the city, it will either be transformed into a wealthy suburb or a ghost village populated by weekenders or holidaymakers.
Meanwhile, although most cities appear wealthy and prosperous if you stay in the centre, it's not difficult to spot the signs of poverty. Even in London, which is a special case anyway.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade Constable: quote:
...our museums and galleries are mostly free...
Only the big national museums are free, and this state of affairs is unlikely to continue indefinitely.
In York we have the following:
National Railway Museum - free, because it's one of the few national museums outside London
Yorkshire Museum - £7.50 for adults
York Castle Museum - £9.50 for adults
Art Gallery - currently closed for redevelopment, usually free
Minster - £10 for adults (though if you say you're going to a service they let you in free)
Clifford's Tower - £4.30 for adults
The Yorkshire Museum and Castle Museum are free to residents of York who have a valid York Card.
In addition to the above there are a lot of smaller museums (such as the Richard III museum and the Treasurer's House). They all charge entrance fees too, even to York residents.
I don't know where you got this idea that all British museums are free, but it's not true. In the biggest tourist trap in Yorkshire we have a grand total of two museums that are free to everybody (if you count the art gallery), plus a couple more that are free to residents. All the others charge admission fees.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot Jorvik. £9.95 for an adult ticket, unless you wish to buy a combined ticket that lets you into the other small museums run by the same people (Barley Hall, DIG, etc.) Personally I wouldn't bother.
I said MOSTLY - I didn't say all museums were free at all. And all local museums I've been to have been free, in a wide variety of towns and cities. I've never been to York so can't comment on that, but I'm talking about local authority run museums.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Very few of the museums I've been to (in or out of York) are run by local authorities. Most are run by independent trusts now, even if they get most of their income from the government. Tullie House in Carlisle (£7 for adults), for example, is operated by the Cumbria Museum Consortium and seems to be funded mainly by the Arts Council.
Art galleries are more likely to be free IME.
This is perhaps a regional difference. Museums in and near London tend to be more generously funded, as I already said; and most of the national museums are down there.
And it's not 'most' of the museums in York that are free; it's two (four) out of about thirty.
[ 30. September 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Very few of the museums I've been to (in or out of York) are run by local authorities. Most are run by independent trusts now, even if they get most of their income from the government. Tullie House in Carlisle (£7 for adults), for example, is operated by the Cumbria Museum Consortium and seems to be funded mainly by the Arts Council.
Art galleries are more likely to be free IME.
This is perhaps a regional difference. Museums in and near London tend to be more generously funded, as I already said; and most of the national museums are down there.
And it's not 'most' of the museums in York that are free; it's two (four) out of about thirty.
It may be a regional difference, but none of the free museums I'm thinking of are near or in London. I suspect the lack of free museums in York is more to do with it being a tourist area - the free museums I've been in have mostly not been in tourist areas but ordinary towns and cities, with the exception of Brighton. Most towns and cities I've been to have some kind of museum or gallery, or even just a local history archive - and these have been usually free to get into, just a recommended donation.
And sorry, I'm aware that it's not 'most' of the museums in York - I was talking about the country as a whole.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I wouldn't describe a local history archive as a museum, even if the collection includes artefacts.
York has a local history service too. That's run by the library - different ball game.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Our four local museums/galleries all charge, adult prices ranging from £7 to £11.90.
Yes, there are concessions but not for the unwaged. Charges start for children aged 4.
With the exception of the town museum, it is cheaper to visit a local(ish) National Trust property than either the local art gallery or the other two museums.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Liverpool has six national museums (plus another 'over the water' in Port Sunlight), a branch of the Tate Gallery, and a small but significant photography gallery, none of which charge admission (except in some cases for special exhibitions). Both cathedrals are also free to enter.
It's a great shame that some cities are not as fortunate. Blame creeping Thatcherism! A combination of 'austerity cuts' with a philistine disregard for culture, or at least a patrician contempt of ordinary people's need for it, has led us to this and the situation seems likely to get worse.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Angloid: quote:
It's a great shame that some cities are not as fortunate. Blame creeping Thatcherism!
Oh I do, I do.
<resolves to stop giggling when people refer to Liverpool as a City of Culture>
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Free museums - effectively national museums - are wonderful if you are lucky enough to be within easy reach of them: the rest of us have to make do with local museums, many of which charge.
The cost of free entry is substantial and revenue from gift shops and the like doesn't necessarily cover it.
The benefit of free entry is also not confined to those of us who pay the taxes that enable the entrance charge to be waived - because so many of the national museums are in London many of the visitors are tourists.
How is this fair?
If I want my grandchild to see the delights in the Science Museum - which really should be an all-day trip - I have to limit us to a maximum of three hours at the Museum to keep the cost of the journey to £82 - and that doesn't include the cost of tube or bus from the terminus to Kensington. So, for those of us from out of town there are no 'free' museums in any meaningful sense.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<resolves to stop giggling when people refer to Liverpool as a City of Culture>
It was actually Capital of Culture in 2008. So there. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Even though the most noticeable difference was that people would return to their wheel-less cars to find them propped up on the Encyclopedia Britannica rather than piles of bricks.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
NYT columnist Gail Collins has written about how the urban/rural (crowded places/empty places) divide affects political attitudes: basically, urban people are reminded every day how important effective government is (e.g., the garbage gets picked up. Or doesn't), and so lean left, while rural people (empty places) can more easily believe they're doing it all on their own, and so tend to be conservative.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Which doesn't explain me, happier out of town but a screaming red commie bastard (apparently)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Here in the UK it's more a case of urban dwellers feeling like the government cares about them; because the number of people living in or near cities or large towns is greater than the number living in rural areas, so all politicians tend to pay more attention to what they want.
The Conservative Party tends to do well in rural areas in England (not in Scotland, don't know about Wales or Northern Ireland), but mostly for historical reasons; if you actually compare the 2010 manifestos for the mainstream parties, the only big difference between their rural policies and everyone else's is that they promised to allow a free vote in Parliament on whether to lift the ban on hunting. And they abandoned that idea once they were in power.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which doesn't explain me, happier out of town but a screaming red commie bastard (apparently)
Bet you're just an old Digger really (and there are much worse things to be).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Timothy the Obscure: NYT columnist Gail Collins has written about how the urban/rural (crowded places/empty places) divide affects political attitudes: basically, urban people are reminded every day how important effective government is (e.g., the garbage gets picked up. Or doesn't), and so lean left, while rural people (empty places) can more easily believe they're doing it all on their own, and so tend to be conservative.
I think this is more about perceived than about real dependence on government services, but I think that there is some truth in that people base their political decisions on this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But the urban places also split left and right. In London, I live in an area of £2/3/4 million pound houses, which slope gently across verdant grass to the river. Hence: Tory MP.
Move a few miles away, where the houses are less plush, and the grass less verdant, and there is a municipal dump next to the river, and you get more Labour MPs.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The rural Tory vote, in the past, must have been upheld by many forelock-tugging peasants in awe of the Lord of the Manor. Now it's probably more to do with the wealthy middle-class takeover of the shires: the Chipping Norton effect across the country.
And of course, the less you feel politicians care about you the less you are likely to bother to vote; hence the shrinking Labour vote in the inner-cities.
Power in this country is in the hands of a metropolitan elite, which ignores the vast majority of non-elite in the metropolis and other cities, and co-opts the rural elite and the aspiring elite of the suburbs. All political parties (with the hopeful exception of the Greens) are either part of this elite or scared stiff of upsetting them.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But the urban places also split left and right.
Yes of course, money is also a factor. And I'm obviously simplifying things by talking about a rural / urban divide. Yet, I believe that such a divide exists.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
There are some quite lefty rural pockets in Britain, in part as a reaction to the kind of traditional landowning domination which Angloid mentions- places where the agricultural unions organised comparatively strongly years ago. And ironically, Chipping Norton, which is or was a small manufacturing town as well as a market town, has a bit of a bolshy tradition.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are some quite lefty rural pockets in Britain, in part as a reaction to the kind of traditional landowning domination which Angloid mentions- places where the agricultural unions organised comparatively strongly years ago. And ironically, Chipping Norton, which is or was a small manufacturing town as well as a market town, has a bit of a bolshy tradition.
I was wondering about that, and if any of the old tradition of the agricultural labourers remained. Norfolk and Dorset were well known as places where strikes happened, and unions were formed, but I assumed that it had all disappeared. I heard that they used to throw the agitators into the village pond, under instruction from the squire and the vicar. Probably a nasty rumour.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Well, there aren't that many agricultural labourers left. They all had to move to towns to find work when the farms were mechanised.
Very few people work in the agricultural sector nowadays. Firstly because there's hardly any money in it (hill-farmers earn less than the minimum wage) and secondly because you don't actually need many people to run a farm - just tractors, combine harvesters, milking machines...
(oversimplification, but not by much)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The farm next to me employs quite a lot of people at certain times of the year, e.g. to gather flowers in by hand, but they are mainly E. Europeans.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Yes, they still need pickers at harvest time. But there isn't much year-round work.
And harvesting is back-breaking work that doesn't pay very well. Most people in this country won't do it, which is why farmers have to hire migrant workers instead.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But the urban places also split left and right.
Yes of course, money is also a factor. And I'm obviously simplifying things by talking about a rural / urban divide. Yet, I believe that such a divide exists.
One example from my own American experience, not sure of this relates to y'all but I've been wanting to mention it...
I grew up in the rural end of an urban-dominated state (Maryland.) I can tell you that when you live in a hugely less populous and less monied end of the state, you do hear a lot of resentment to those downstaters with their crazy ideas and priorities that make no sense to you. My dad is a good liberal who spent many years working in local government, and even he has complained that "those democrats want to make us into another California" or somesuch, that decisions made downstate do not reflect the interests of western MD.
Living in the urban hub of IL, I think it's somewhat similar, you learn to expect rumblings and resentment from the rural end, though I think the power is a tad more balanced here. Chicago is a lot bigger than DC/Baltimore, but the rest of IL is also bigger than the rural panhandle of Maryland.
I think in America there are some big cultural differences that feed into financial or political preferences, sometimes perceived and sometimes real. Broadly, democrats tend to represent urban centers and republicans represent rural/small town areas. Suburbs are a mixed bag.
[ 04. October 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The Australian Labour Party started out pre-federation as a party of country and city workers. There was a large workforce in country areas, not just shearers but general farm hands as well. With federation, a national party was formed and quickly came to be a dominant force in political life. Much as in the UK, opposition to this force quickly led to the abandonment of the old divides between free-trade and protection in conservative ranks.
The long success of the ALP in NSW politics after WW II resulted from hard work by Sir William McKell in reinvigorating the ALP in country areas, while maintaining a strong city base as well. Of course, by then increasing farm mechanisation had already seen a dwindling in the numbers of rural employees save for shearers and itinerant labour in the various fruit industries.
What started out as the Country Party was the working out of an idiosyncratic form of agrarian socialism: farmers and graziers argued for the social welfare benefits for farmers in bad years, low taxes in good and generally low interest rates for monies lent to the rural sector.
[ 04. October 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I can tell you that when you live in a hugely less populous and less monied end of the state, you do hear a lot of resentment to those downstaters with their crazy ideas and priorities that make no sense to you.
YES!
Some years ago southwest Virginia was competing with the northern Virginia DC suburbs for road funds. No single action will relieve the poverty of Appalachia, but good roads where they are needed would be a great help. The people in Fairfax county were complaining about the traffic jams. They didn't seem to realize that poverty is a lot worse.
Moo
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What started out as the Country Party was the working out of an idiosyncratic form of agrarian socialism: farmers and graziers argued for the social welfare benefits for farmers in bad years, low taxes in good and generally low interest rates for monies lent to the rural sector.
Interesting. AIUI the establishment of the Scandinavian welfare states owed quite a lot to the support of Agrarian parties. And am I right in thinking that Minnesota has (i) a tradition of relatively progressive politics and (ii) a history of Agrarian influence which is still evident in the state Democrats being officially Democrat-Farm Labor?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, they still need pickers at harvest time. But there isn't much year-round work.
And harvesting is back-breaking work that doesn't pay very well. Most people in this country won't do it, which is why farmers have to hire migrant workers instead.
You're thinking of fruit crops farming - yes that is mostly seasonal, and bad weather can really knock a farmer for six if his harvest gets blight or is flattened before fruition. But there's also grain and vegetable farming (vegetable crops can be grown all year round), and livestock farming needs people all year round, not just in summer. There are still agricultural workers to be found in the small villages in the countryside and there is still work for them to do.
Farming may be more mechanized than it was, and these days you can plug a cow into a milking machine, but someone still has to clean the place and the equipment, get the milk from A to B, feed the cows, deal with health problems, arrange for bulls/AI, calving, visits to markets, vets' visits, Defra inspections, the accounts, and so on. With sheep there's all that, and the annual shearing which is a legal requirement, and possibly the milking if you intend to make cheese. Livestock farmers usually seem to start their day in the small hours, which crop farmers don't usually have to do. Pigs are easier; you don't have to milk them.
There's a recruitment drive going on currently to try to get more young people into farming. It seems to be having some success.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
NYT columnist Gail Collins has written about how the urban/rural (crowded places/empty places) divide affects political attitudes: basically, urban people are reminded every day how important effective government is (e.g., the garbage gets picked up. Or doesn't), and so lean left, while rural people (empty places) can more easily believe they're doing it all on their own, and so tend to be conservative.
There's also the reality that if you get rural enough the government doesn't provide those services - you periodically drive out to the dump and pay to dump your trash; you rent a box at the post office because the post office won't or can't deliver to your house, etc.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
However, the rugged individualists (ranchers, farmers, miners) of the intermountain west somehow fail to recognize that their livelihood depends on things like government-supported irrigation projects, hydropower, and highways, and railroads. The settlement of the American West was a massive public works project that would never have happened without activist government.
And while there are left-leaning pockets in rural America (the upper Midwest, with its Scandinavian influence, one example), a political map of the US by county shows blue around the major cities in red states, and red in the rural areas in blue states.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
I'll admit I don't know much about people in the west or NW past Wyoming.
I'm more with Bullfrog and Moo in terms of knowing a lot of people who recognize that FDR and the Tennessee Valley Authority and other governmental projects did a lot to build the infrastructure but who fail to identify with the priorities of a lot of current Democrats and their spending (especially since they seem to not realize that the current infrastructure needs periodic maintenance).
AFAICT there's no failure to recognize interdependence, there's just a reluctance to want the federal government and their bizarre rules involved in trying to solve some problems.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm more with Bullfrog and Moo in terms of knowing a lot of people who recognize that FDR and the Tennessee Valley Authority and other governmental projects did a lot to build the infrastructure but who fail to identify with the priorities of a lot of current Democrats and their spending (especially since they seem to not realize that the current infrastructure needs periodic maintenance).
AFAICT there's no failure to recognize interdependence, there's just a reluctance to want the federal government and their bizarre rules involved in trying to solve some problems.
Tell me about the bizarre rules!
The town of Grundy, which is very near the Kentucky border, and is the largest town around, is eager to attract industry. No industry will come until transportation improves.
Grundy has an airport with a short runway. They want to lengthen it so larger planes can land. The present runway is built on ground that was leveled after coal was removed from one-half of a mountain. The coal company ceded the flat land and mountain to the town. There is coal in the other half of the mountain, but mining it would not pay.
The town proposed to mine the coal in the other half to help pay for removing all the stone and dirt. Then they would have a level space for their runway.
This was a very small and limited coal-mining operation. The US Bureau of Mines insisted that they follow all the procedures for opening a large new mine, including the paperwork, which might take years. No one was suggesting ignoring safely or environmental regulations; those would be strictly enforced. However, the other regulations were designed for large-scale operations and required equipment which was totally unnecessary in this situation.
I haven't heard the end of the story. If anyone in government gave a damn about Appalachian poverty, they would have done everything possible to advance the project.
Moo
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on
:
When a child, the farms were so small (I only now see) -more like small-holdings, compared to the farms of today.
subsistence, almost -- tenant-farming with say 15 or so cows to milk !
Seems amazing now.
And all the lore of childhood-- the haunted house on the edge of the village; and the bogey-man's door up a long, long (to us) twitten.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Ariel: quote:
There's a recruitment drive going on currently to try to get more young people into farming. It seems to be having some success.
That's good news, but I wasn't just thinking about fruit crop farming. My dad used to earn extra money helping out on a local farm - his least favourite job was killing turkeys at Christmas.
I was taking the historical view. Back in the Middle Ages, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture (or forestry, if you count that as a separate sector) and England's wealth depended on wool. Nowadays most people work in services and Britain's wealth depends mainly on moving money around. Agriculture employs less than 2% of the workforce.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, they still need pickers at harvest time. But there isn't much year-round work.
And harvesting is back-breaking work that doesn't pay very well. Most people in this country won't do it, which is why farmers have to hire migrant workers instead.
It's not just "won't". When you're required to be in a field in the middle of Norfolk at 6am with rural public transport, the only people in a position to do it are groups of immigrants taken onto site by a gangmaster in a van.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
That's true as well.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0