Apparently Rural England Is Too White And Therefore By Definition Racist!!
FRANK FUREDI
If you get a chance do read a report by the University of Leicester’s Centre For Hate Studies titled Unpacking Experiences of Hostility[i]. This report is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the dogmatic outlook of multiculturalist zealots. The report contends that rural England in too white and that the countryside should make more of an effort to provide halal food for newcomers.
The Centre For Hate Studies clearly hates the culture that prevails in the English countryside. It condemns what it characterises as ‘traditional pub culture’ and takes exception to rural England’s so-called ‘monocultural customs’, which it regards as exclusionary. In a word, it is far too English.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what this Report really finds offensive is the presence of too many white people living in rural England. It refers to the ‘overwhelming Whiteness of many rural areas’ which supposedly ‘contributes to a sense that these spaces are “owned” by a particular demographic, namely middle-class, White, and longstanding residents’. To underline its dislike of the white countryside, the Report writes of the ‘psychological burden that’ people from a minority background feel when they are ‘navigating predominantly white spaces’.
The authors of the report know how to perform psychological distress and trauma. Apparently the experience of revealing the horrors of rural England is so disturbing that they felt it necessary to insert a trigger warning in the beginning of their document. It states; ‘This report contains hate speech, abusive language and references to racism which individuals may find offensive or distressing’. Readers will be glad to know that nevertheless the brave researchers survived; in no small measure due to the fact that they were able to employ professional counsellors to guide them through the difficult challenges they faced in white spaces.
The authors note that ‘to support the research team, we obtained additional funding to appoint a counsellor who could provide specialist support to the research team by facilitating reflective practice meetings which created space for team members to discuss the psychological demands of this work’. The poor souls from Hate Studies put on a brave face when they acknowledged; ‘It is important, in all cases, to acknowledge the stresses and strains of prolonged exposure to hate speech and negative commentary, a sinister phenomenon worth studying in its own right’.!
If there is a ‘sinister phenomenon’ it the attempt of the Hate Studies idealogues to stigmatise a people’s way of life in rural England.
According to the pound-shop academics who produced this report anything that is remotely white – people, pubs, cultural traditions and rituals – are by definition racist. It matters not that the culture they despise has been around for centuries. Nor that the existence of small rural communities has nothing to do with the perpetuation of racial superiority. The authors of the report simply dismiss the right of white people to live accordance with the way of life in accordance with the customs that successive generations were born into.
In effect the report asks that rural people should change their way of life and embrace one that is alien to their existence. With typical multiculturalist arrogance it insists that it is not new migrants but members of the host community who should change their way of life.
The association of ‘white space’ with psychological distress is important since by implication it suggests that the world would be less distressful if these spaces ceased to exist.
It is worth noting that the cultural assault on the countryside has become part of a Europe wide campaign directed at so-called white spaces. In nations like the Netherlands and Germany there are frequent calls to ‘decolonise’ the countryside. One researcher complains that activities like hiking, cycling and camping are mainly perceived as white hobbies’[ii].
I have personal experience with engaging with people who believe that rural England needs to become less white and more multicultural. Over the years I have become accustomed to people informing me that this or that provincial village or town that they visited is ‘too whit’e. I never thought about it much until an American colleague came to visit me in my former home in the village of Throwley, in Kent .
My colleague, an Afro-American professor from a university in California came to discuss the research that I carried out in Kenya on the Mau Mau Revolt. After our discussion, followed by a cup of tea, he told me that he felt ‘uncomfortable’ being in my beautiful old village. I was genuinely shocked by his statement and even more taken aback when he responded to my question of ‘why do you feel uncomfortable’. He answered that he felt that Throwley was ‘too white’ and that it lacked the presence of people like him.
At the time I did not quite get why anyone would find it surprising that the inhabitants of this remote ancient village in the Kent countryside were mainly white. When I conducted research in small villages in the Rift Valley of Kenya, I never for once thought that it was remarkable that all the members of these village communities were conspicuously black. Nor have I seen academic essays that complain that villages in Botswana or Chad are ‘too black’.
What I did not quite comprehend then but understand now is that for sections of our society whiteness communicates the idea of an original sin. Being white is a form of moral inferiority. It took some time for me to grasp the fact that the elimination of the culture of the English countryside has become something of a political crusade.
The Aspiration For Replacement
Earlier this week I read a fascinating commentary in The New York Times by one of its columnist Bret Stephens. Stephens has as its focus successive governments attempt to bring about ‘a social transformation without society’s explicit consent’[iii]. His point about non-consensual social transformation refers to policies that promote mass migration on both sides of the Atlantic. He notes that in ‘in America, it’s called replacement’.
Stephens understands that even a neutral reference to replacement theory is like to court the accusation of racism. He wrote:
‘Liberals and progressives typically dismiss replacement theory as antisemitic, racist demagoguery, and no doubt there are plenty of bigots who believe it. But maybe some measure of understanding ought to be extended to ordinary voters who merely wonder why they should be made to feel like unwelcome outsiders in parts of their own country or asked to pay a share of their taxes for the benefit of newcomers they never agreed to welcome in the first place or extend tolerance to those who don’t always show tolerance in return or be told to shut their mouths over some of the more shocking instances of migrant criminality’.
In other words why should age old residents of rural England be made to feel that their home is no longer theirs? And why should they be subject to a campaign designed to dispossess them of their culture.
I agree with Stephens’ sentiments and certainly the project of social engineering the ‘white spaces’ of rural England out of existence appears to be motivated by an aspiration for replacement.
The main medium for promoting the aspiration for replacement is the ideology of diversity. According to this ideology, mass migration is to be valued in its own right because it will change society for the better. It is represented as a positive and welcome instrument of social change. The American Vice-President Joe Bidden expressed this sentiment in a statement he made in 2014 welcoming the former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to Washington. Bidden stated that ‘those of us of European stock’ will be a minority by 2017 and concluded ‘that’s a good thing’[iv]. But why should a change in the ethnic or cultural composition of a society be a ‘good thing’ or for that matter a ‘bad thing’? Why should a shift in a demographic balance have an important normative content?
Biden answered this question when he explained that the impending minority status of Americans of European stock was a ‘good thing’ because it would make America into a stronger nation. ‘The secret that people don’t know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength’, he stated[v]. Not democracy, not the constitution, not its liberal ethos, not its creativity and entrepreneurship – the secret of America’s strength is its diversity!
Of course, a diverse society may benefit from the mixing of cultures and ideas. But when diversity is transformed into a stand-alone medium for change it will turn into a political weapon used to by-pass democratic decision making.
[i] https://figshare.le.ac.uk/articles/report/Unpacking_Experiences_of_Hostility_Full_Report_1/29626028?file=57035669
[ii] See Lauren Smith’s excellent commentary on this development- https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/no-the-countryside-is-not-racist/
[iii] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/02/opinion/immigration-liberal-europe-merkel.html
[iv] Cited in Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-says-whites-a-minority-in-2017-census-says-2044/article/2567351
[v] http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/biden-boasts-end-of-caucasian-majority-in-u-s/
This article (“Too White”; An Aspiration For Putting Replacement Theory Into Practice?) was created and published by Frank Furedi and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply