Urban Provincialism
Understanding The Citified
Okay, that's really just a way of balancing the scales a bit. Those who happily call the middle of the country flyover country and look down on rural areas should realize that it works both ways. If someone is foolish enough to assume that rural people are beneath him by virtue of not being an urban sophisticate, he should be aware that there are people in rural areas who see urbanites as beneath them. After all, they don't have the sense to own guns. (I know, blanket statement, bad.)
To one peering from outside, it seems as though many born and raised in large urban areas have a disadvantage in terms of understanding, a lack that you could call Urban Provincialism. It probably comes from the nature of the cities themselves and the subsequent effects on the minds of the inhabitants. Evidence of this affliction is seen in an attitude of superiority to the denizens of rural areas, who are then accused of provincialism. In other words each side, urban and rural, see the other side as a bit short of a full load. Giving the essay this title is a way of pointing out that it's going both ways. Many from rural areas look on city life and wonder why anyone would live there if given a choice. (As a child in the countryside I felt sorry for the children in cities. Probably the feeling was reciprocated.)
Michael Bloomberg made a statement about how easy farming is, you just dig a hole and put a seed in. Out in flyover country one wonders if he is smart enough to be a farmer. It was a peculiar thing to say, but it's okay that he knows nothing about farming, that just means he did not learn about it. It's the fact that he did not consider the idea that it could be complicated that's telling. When considering a field of endeavor the details with which one is unfamiliar it's reasonable to assume that there are manifold issues and complexities that would come to light upon further study. The fact that he would assume that few if any such complexities exist is evidence of suffering from some sort of arrogance, and we know that the price of arrogance is foolishness. Hence he appears to be an urban provincial. But then, that is human nature, you don't know what you don't know, and it behooves one to come to grips with the idea that one's own self could be ignoring the tendency to be blind to complexities, and perhaps to similarly make a fool of oneself by pontificating.
"Sometimes a rural life - without agricultural culture, community, or land - it means that you're a very long drive from everything. It's a big cultural isolation in terms of any kind of schooling where you could get exposed to things that might push the positive buttons. The geography of where people find themselves situated, both in metropolises and in the heartland, really starts to matter." ~ Debra Granik
Schooling? Oh please, Debra.
The operations needed to keep a city running tend to run toward a top down government since you can't build a new building, for instance, without dealing extensively with city planners. One’s world view then tends toward the idea of all life needing to organized from the top since that’s life in the big city. You can't live there without being totally dependent on technology since a modern city can't exist without electricity. Imagine climbing twenty flights of stairs every day to and from your apartment, modern cities cannot exist without electricity, not to mention the water supply. One is dependent on food being brought in from the countryside, and one begins to see the rural areas as a support system for the cities, and the people there as a form of servant. A major line of thinking in preparedness thought is that disaster could befall the cities if power were lost for a few days, or even if EBT failed to work.
When it comes to ones view of the roll of government the question is just how much government we need, and the answer is “the right amount.” I think a major part of the city/rural divide is that a person's view of what the right amount is usually differs greatly between city and rural people simply due to the aforementioned difficulties in running a city.
"In 1840 I was called from my farm to undertake the administration of public affairs and I foresaw that I was called to a bed of thorns. I now leave that bed which has afforded me little rest, and eagerly seek repose in the quiet enjoyments of rural life." ~ John Tyler
The above is all to try to account for the modern phenomenon of the major cities being “blue”. Why should such a thing be? It would seem that those elected in the cities (assuming fair elections) would be those who evince a top down view and, more insidiously, a view that the problems of the world can be fixed by government. Thinking that the problems of the world can be fixed by government means paving the road to hell with good intentions, at least by that segment that actually have good intentions.
Now we have a situation where the road to hell have been well and truly paved by the the blue city leaders. I don't think I need to tell anyone what all of those problems are since they are well known. Even so, the leaders there, although soaked in socialist type thought, are not stupid, they must have a pragmatic side. Somehow their pragmatic sides seem to be overshadowed by their socialist sides, with adherence to socialist dogma taking precedent over real solutions. But then, Communism may be a disaster for the people at large but it's great for the rulers.
"Socialism is not about big concepts and heavy theory. Socialism is about decent shelter for those who are homeless. It is about water for those who have no safe drinking water. It is about health care, it is about a life of dignity for the old. It is about overcoming the huge divide between urban and rural areas. It is about a decent education for all our people. Socialism is about rolling back the tyranny of the market. As long as the economy is dominated by an unelected, privileged few, the case for socialism will exist." ~ Chris Hani
How are those good intentions working out for you, Chris?
Stay Brave, Stay Free
Farming is probably the *hardest* profession, not to mention hardest work, through which to make a living. There are so many variables to juggle, many impossible to predict with confidence, and some of the most critical are completely beyond human control. But not beyond government meddling, alas! It may sound weird but I commend Clarkson's Farm to those who think dropping seeds in holes yields easy profits. He frankly acknowledges he can only continue farming because he has other (massive) income streams. Most of us do not, but it is still very much worth it to embrace the challenge.
There's a reason Eden was not a city but a garden.
Spot on, David. Those who are dependent on the goods, services, infrastructure, municpalities, mass transportation, convenient delivery services, and other citywide systems, like myself, should realize that the farmers and rurally located people would likely fare much better through a war, as they are much more self-sufficient, have strong community ties and trading partners, and often have a life foundation of faith and family. In my estimation, they are generally better equipped to endure difficult times than those of us not accustomed to their way of life. Of course, that is precisely what makes them a target of the federal government, which has declared a war on farmers (that I won't elaborate on here), because they know these are the very people who can get by without them.