Is the countryside racist? Villages 'that want to remain white and middle class'

Country dwellers believe rural communities should be the preserve of white middle-class families with conservative values, a survey claims.
Many residents of countryside towns and villages consider them the 'last bastion' of old-fashioned English traditions. And they often equate this 'exclusively and unthinkingly' with white Englishness, a study has found.

Academics at Leicester University interviewed hundreds of residents from rural communities across England to discover what they considered to be the modern rural idyll. They found that the popular vision of English country life is 'essentially monocultural, in all its forms – white, heterosexual, middle-class, conformist, family-orientated, church-going, conservative and 'safe'.

Jon Garland and Neil Chakraborti, the senior lecturers in criminology who carried out the research, said: 'The countryside was, for a number of those we spoke to, the last bastion of old-fashioned Englishness which needed to be preserved from the encroachment of the "evils" of late modernity

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370987/British-country-villages-want-remain-white-middle-class.html#ixzz1Hymh8xad

When immigrants arrive in western countries they instinctively form their own communities. This makes them feel 'safe'. You'll notice the reason these white people wanted to live among their own, to feel 'safe'. What's the difference? Why is it okay for non-whites to live among their own clans, but racist if whites want to do the same? At the end of the day we're all 'clans', and it'll take more than a few decades of multiculturalism to change human nature.

This is what disappoints me about the Mail, as that article could be straight form the pages of the BNP Website, yet they slag them off, because they are all NUJ "Journalists"!

Maybe not racist but certainly elitist; and taking bits from every prejudice in the book!

It could be homophobic, snobbish, xenophobic, racist. Sounds to me like the ideal bastion of English today is over 50s only.

After all, I would be STUNNED if you could find me any large group of people who were predominantley under 50 and mostly white, heterosexual, pro-establishment, church going Christians.

'Evils' of modernity. What a bloody joke. Some people dispise change and even fear it for some nostalgic idealistic reasons. Most of us see change as inevitable, and welcome it with open arms. After all, we will have to live with it down the line

eilzel wrote:Maybe not racist but certainly elitist; and taking bits from every prejudice in the book!

It could be homophobic, snobbish, xenophobic, racist. Sounds to me like the ideal bastion of English today is over 50s only.

After all, I would be STUNNED if you could find me any large group of people who were predominantley under 50 and mostly white, heterosexual, pro-establishment, church going Christians.

'Evils' of modernity. What a bloody joke. Some people dispise change and even fear it for some nostalgic idealistic reasons. Most of us see change as inevitable, and welcome it with open arms. After all, we will have to live with it down the line

true Eil...but why should we HAVE to change...just to satisfy someones crazed ego...why should anyone have their life or life style degraded just to suit someone elses political adgenda?? There is change for the good...then there is also change for change sake...then there is change for the worse....

you quote as one thing ...snobbish...well i dont now how you define that...but if that means playing hell with a local authority, if, for instance it wants to place a homeless chav with 10 kids and 99 "boyfriends" next door to me.....because there is a house to rent......then I'll play bloody hell...... AND YES...before anyone asks..I would sooner see the kids in care and the girl on the streets......because SHE made the choice.....and I dont want the consequences of HER choice....

eilzel wrote:Maybe not racist but certainly elitist; and taking bits from every prejudice in the book!

It could be homophobic, snobbish, xenophobic, racist. Sounds to me like the ideal bastion of English today is over 50s only.

After all, I would be STUNNED if you could find me any large group of people who were predominantley under 50 and mostly white, heterosexual, pro-establishment, church going Christians.

'Evils' of modernity. What a bloody joke. Some people dispise change and even fear it for some nostalgic idealistic reasons. Most of us see change as inevitable, and welcome it with open arms. After all, we will have to live with it down the line

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?

Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia allowing the mass immigration of Christians, so that in a few decades it would no longer be an Islamic country?

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations “hate” anybody else.

All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

But of course that doesn't fit in with the LW ideal of bringing everyone's living standards down to the lowest common denominator. does it!

Very few "over 50's" would actually have ANY problem with either Mass Immigration, OR Multiculturalism, IF we'd been asked whether we wanted it and IF we'd voted for it!

If you can show me that in ANY Parties Manifesto eilzel, I would be very much obliged if you could post me the Link to it!

MrDoodles wrote:

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?

Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia allowing the mass immigration of Christians, so that in a few decades it would no longer be an Islamic country?

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations “hate” anybody else.

All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

But of course that doesn't fit in with the LW ideal of bringing everyone's living standards down to the lowest common denominator. does it!

Very few "over 50's" would actually have ANY problem with either Mass Immigration, OR Multiculturalism, IF we'd been asked whether we wanted it and IF we'd voted for it!

If you can show me that in ANY Parties Manifesto eilzel, I would be very much obliged if you could post me the Link to it!

We are not Saudi Arabia- thank christ.

We are not Pakistan- thank god.

We are not India- thank ****.

Fact is MrD we are simply better than all those countries. We are more tolerant, more free, more wealthy (in terms of the average individual), etc etc.

We didn't ask for multiculturalism but it's only a term anyway- a result of being part of a greater international community- and at times we DID need immigration. Admittedly not on the scale of the last 15 years, but its done now, and rather than elitist nostalgic claptrap headlines like this, we are better placed making it work.

eilzel wrote:Maybe not racist but certainly elitist; and taking bits from every prejudice in the book!

It could be homophobic, snobbish, xenophobic, racist. Sounds to me like the ideal bastion of English today is over 50s only.

After all, I would be STUNNED if you could find me any large group of people who were predominantley under 50 and mostly white, heterosexual, pro-establishment, church going Christians.

'Evils' of modernity. What a bloody joke. Some people dispise change and even fear it for some nostalgic idealistic reasons. Most of us see change as inevitable, and welcome it with open arms. After all, we will have to live with it down the line

I wonder what my late parents would think if they were around today and heard themselves described as homophobic, xenophobic, racist etc - they were just decent hardworking people living among other decent hardworking people. This is not 'nostalgic' and 'idealistic'. It was life.

'Welcome change with open arms' - are you serious??? compare life before and after this change we should welcome so much:

Pre 1960s. Families with only one earner had a choice of places to rent at a fraction of their take home pay. Plenty of places to choose from as the population of the whole UK was about 50m, so there was no shortage of housing - go to work on a bus with no traffic jams, or on the tube with no-one standing. Rates (Council tax) only paid once a year, a pittance. No VAT because there wasn't much expenditure on benefits as there were plenty of jobs around. Go out in the evenings, walk home alone late at night, no worries. Knew your neighbours, every London Borough was like a village with their own communities. Crime figures show violent crimes at less than one tenth of today. A murder was headlines because it was a rare event. Hospitals were spotless with no bugs, TB had been eradicated, plenty of beds ... ...

Today's glorious multicultural Britain. Both parents working long hours to pay high mortgage/rent, crushed like cattle into the tube or spending hours in traffic jams to get to work, no time to spend with the children. Huge council tax bills to pay for the likes of diversity officers, VAT and high taxes to pay for benefits for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and unemployed, no jobs around, no empty flats - you either take benefits or pay extortionate rents. Go out when you can afford it, but make sure you don't walk the streets alone or you'll be robbed, or if you're a girl raped, or gang raped by black or asian gangs. Don't go into the shop in case you get shot like the little 5 year old today. Not well? go into hospital if you can get a bed but you'll likely catch a superbug or TB - and if you're old and infirm you'll be left to starve to death.

'Welcome change with open arms'. Sure.

sprite wrote:
I wonder what my late parents would think if they were around today and heard themselves described as homophobic, xenophobic, racist etc - they were just decent hardworking people living among other decent hardworking people. This is not 'nostalgic' and 'idealistic'. It was life.

'Welcome change with open arms' - are you serious??? compare life before and after this change we should welcome so much:

Pre 1960s. Families with only one earner had a choice of places to rent at a fraction of their take home pay. Plenty of places to choose from as the population of the whole UK was about 50m, so there was no shortage of housing - go to work on a bus with no traffic jams, or on the tube with no-one standing. Rates (Council tax) only paid once a year, a pittance. No VAT because there wasn't much expenditure on benefits as there were plenty of jobs around. Go out in the evenings, walk home alone late at night, no worries. Knew your neighbours, every London Borough was like a village with their own communities. Crime figures show violent crimes at less than one tenth of today. A murder was headlines because it was a rare event. Hospitals were spotless with no bugs, TB had been eradicated, plenty of beds ... ...

Today's glorious multicultural Britain. Both parents working long hours to pay high mortgage/rent, crushed like cattle into the tube or spending hours in traffic jams to get to work, no time to spend with the children. Huge council tax bills to pay for the likes of diversity officers, VAT and high taxes to pay for benefits for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and unemployed, no jobs around, no empty flats - you either take benefits or pay extortionate rents. Go out when you can afford it, but make sure you don't walk the streets alone or you'll be robbed, or if you're a girl raped, or gang raped by black or asian gangs. Don't go into the shop in case you get shot like the little 5 year old today. Not well? go into hospital if you can get a bed but you'll likely catch a superbug or TB - and if you're old and infirm you'll be left to starve to death.

'Welcome change with open arms'. Sure.

In many ways things were better then Sprite- but do you honestly think immigration is the main problem behind all those things?

Population growth would have occured anyway, we'd still have a population over 60 million with or without immigration and population growth is the biggest cost by far.

Also, I never suggested your parents were homophobic or racist. Would they have liked their home town/village LESS if a gay couple moved in?

eilzel wrote:

We are not Saudi Arabia- thank christ.

We are not Pakistan- thank god.

We are not India- thank ****.

Fact is MrD we are simply better than all those countries. We are more tolerant, more free, more wealthy (in terms of the average individual), etc etc.

We didn't ask for multiculturalism but it's only a term anyway- a result of being part of a greater international community- and at times we DID need immigration. Admittedly not on the scale of the last 15 years, but its done now, and rather than elitist nostalgic claptrap headlines like this, we are better placed making it work.

Hi Eilzel, yes you're right, its done now and with such a huge amount of low-paid workers being brought in the standard of living here is dropping daily.

You need to look around you before announcing how much better those countries are than ours. You are aware that there is a lot of poverty here in this country with many families living first in fuel poverty and now in food poverty. We have people here receiving charity food parcels.

But in your eyes we are better than those other countries.

Seren wrote:

Hi Eilzel, yes you're right, its done now and with such a huge amount of low-paid workers being brought in the standard of living here is dropping daily.

You need to look around you before announcing how much better those countries are than ours. You are aware that there is a lot of poverty here in this country with many families living first in fuel poverty and now in food poverty. We have people here receiving charity food parcels.

But in your eyes we are better than those other countries.

I acknowledge there are problems here Seren, in some areas more than others. But I don't think it's right to blame EVERYTHING on immigration or changed social attitudes. As I said, populations grow, we'd still be 'over' populated without immigration.

I don't deny problems. But you are going to have to try harder than that to convince me we are in any sense worse off than those in those other countries.

Saudis- oppressed by Islamic dictatorship.
Pakistanis- live in one of the most unstable nations on earth, and house for terrorists.
Indians- 2/3 of the population are the poorest people in the world!

But we have to deal with food packages and a few less car journeys. I'm not saying that we don't have problems Seren, but you are going to have to try harder than that.

eilzel wrote:

I acknowledge there are problems here Seren, in some areas more than others. But I don't think it's right to blame EVERYTHING on immigration or changed social attitudes. As I said, populations grow, we'd still be 'over' populated without immigration.

I don't deny problems. But you are going to have to try harder than that to convince me we are in any sense worse off than those in those other countries.

Saudis- oppressed by Islamic dictatorship.
Pakistanis- live in one of the most unstable nations on earth, and house for terrorists.
Indians- 2/3 of the population are the poorest people in the world!

But we have to deal with food packages and a few less car journeys. I'm not saying that we don't have problems Seren, but you are going to have to try harder than that.

You cannot see the connection between thousands and thousands of immigrants willing to work for peanuts are keeping wages down.

How can British worker with a mortgage and a young family possibly hope to work for the pittance that say a Pole will work for.

Many families with children are slipping further and further into debt and are too afraid to demand pay rises in line with inflation.

Meanwhile the EU rules that immigrants are entitled to child benefits even for children back home, yes it applies to all EU countries but only Britain was daft enough to allow simply thousands of them here.

Seren wrote:

You cannot see the connection between thousands and thousands of immigrants willing to work for peanuts are keeping wages down.

How can British worker with a mortgage and a young family possibly hope to work for the pittance that say a Pole will work for.

Many families with children are slipping further and further into debt and are too afraid to demand pay rises in line with inflation.

Meanwhile the EU rules that immigrants are entitled to child benefits even for children back home, yes it applies to
all EU countries but only Britain was daft enough to allow simply thousands of them here.

Sorry Seren. I actually do see that, I apologize for being an ignoramous, I have actually agreed on that before with MrD

But still, it is only one, admittedly large, area. We would still have most the problems we do today.

Also I think Skemster has made the connection before, that those who had the most to gain from immigration were rich business men who thrive off emloying people for pittance. I imagine most of these would be quite RW and quite Conservative.

The main point of what I was saying stands though, immigration is not the only factor.

eilzel wrote:

Sorry Seren. I actually do see that, I apologize for being an ignoramous, I have actually agreed on that before with MrD

But still, it is only one, admittedly large, area. We would still have most the problems we do today.

Also I think Skemster has made the connection before, that those who had the most to gain from immigration were rich business men who thrive off emloying people for pittance. I imagine most of these would be quite RW and quite Conservative.

The main point of what I was saying stands though, immigration is not the only factor.

There are of course other reasons why our country is failing as a nation and living standards are dropping sharply.

But forcing English Anglo-Saxons to be multi-cultural, surely that is not tyranny also, to quote your earlier examples

Seren wrote:

There are of course other reasons why our country is failing as a nation and living standards are dropping sharply.

But forcing English Anglo-Saxons to be multi-cultural, surely that is not tyranny also, to quote your earlier examples

No one is forcing anything. We have immigration, as do most countries. This creates a situation where people of many cultures mix. The result is multiculturalism. You then have a choice. Resist and complain and sometimes even be disgustingly rude about people of different beliefs and ethnicities. OR. At least try to get along with them, tolerate others, understand their ways, live side by side without fear or contempt.

We can all go on and on about how we'll vote for an extremist fringe and throw them al out but it just isn't going to happen. When I think of the violent, hateful situation such an unliklihood might create I cringe. Immigration does need to be controlled far better than it has been. But really we have a situation which is now mostly unchangable, and far from unique to Britain.

Pointing out how 'unEnglish' certain people are, how gays or people not strict church goers do not 'conform' to this ideal; is simply divisive. What good can come from point out these things?

eilzel wrote:

No one is forcing anything. We have immigration, as do most countries. This creates a situation where people of many cultures mix. The result is multiculturalism.

Yet again eilzel you are wrong!

We WERE forced to accept mass immigration by Liebour, just as a nasty "Social Experiment" "To teach the Tories a lesson"

No one had a choice, it wasn't in any manifesto, they did it without any mandate for the electorate, to try and swell the ranks of Liebour voters to try and cling to power and the sheeple are just stupid enough, to vote them in again at the next Election!