English Countryside: “White”, not “Brown”

by Lynda Goetz

Are you imagining a picturesque, snow-covered, winter landscape versus the current reality of a soggy, brown and grey, English rural scene, complete with mud and water running off fields into roads and gardens? The latter may, sadly, be the state of the English countryside in February 2026, but it is not of course what the Government and its local councillors are at all concerned about at the moment.  No, what they are apparently concerned about is the fact that our rural areas are, in spite of the mud and water, not ‘brown’ enough.  They are apparently “too white” and “too middle-class”. Never mind the fact that actually there are also a lot of non-middle-class white people in the English countryside, people who earn their living by doing traditionally non-middle-class jobs like plumbing, fencing, tree-pruning and felling, machinery repairing and so on; there simply should not be so many white people around. Never mind the fact that this is England we are talking about and for a great many centuries white people have made up the majority of the population; according to our socialist masters, this is unacceptable and the countryside needs “diversifying”.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has initiated a drive to attract more ethnic minorities to the countryside after a review found many well-known beauty spots risked becoming “irrelevant” in a multicultural society. In what way these parts of our country could be viewed as irrelevant is not really clarified. The argument seems to boil down to the fact that immigrants, Muslims in particular, find our rural pub and dog-walking culture make them feel “anxious” and “unwelcome”.

The report, known as the Landscapes Review, which was commissioned by DEFRA in 2019, under the Conservatives and overseen by journalist and author Julian Glover, made twenty-seven proposals. The Tory government responded in 2022  and DEFRA then went on to produce a second report in 2022, titled "Improving the ethnic diversity of visitors to England's protected landscapes", focussing on Proposal 9  in the original report, which suggested “New long‑term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors”. It is this report which has attracted comment in the last few days as Labour councils have announced initiatives, and bodies like the Chiltern National Landscape  reported that it will launch an outreach programme in Luton and High Wycombe targeted at Muslims, after the report found ethnic minorities visiting the area were "anxious over unleashed dogs". This second report also said: "Protected landscapes were closely associated with 'traditional' pubs, which have limited food options and cater to people who have a drinking culture”. This apparently resulted in “Muslims from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi group” saying that “this contributed to a feeling of being unwelcome."

Those born and brought up in the countryside, as well as those who have chosen to live in rural areas, are surely entitled, in the same way as immigrants who have come to this country choose to congregate in cities where others of the same nationality or religious persuasion have formed a community, to live in communities which reflect their culture and history. If that means, unsurprisingly, that there are more white people and that their interests and activities are representative of a long-standing and traditional way of life, then why on earth should they be castigated for that? Why should they be made to feel that their preference for being surrounded by those who are like them is somehow “wrong” or indeed that it will make where they live “irrelevant” in the future? If I were (for whatever bizarre reason) to choose to go and live in Pakistan or Bangladesh, would I expect that those around me should be trying to adapt their lifestyle to mine, or change the way they have been conducting their affairs for centuries to suit my cultural traditions? If I go to the Vatican, should I be wearing shorts and a strappy top? The answer, of course, would be a resounding “No!”.  Why then should we in this country be attempting such social engineering to appeal to Muslims who have moved to our country and don’t approve of dogs or drinking? This is patently absurd and yet is seriously being proposed by our government, local authorities and regional bodies who are actively spending taxpayers’ money (which apparently they don’t have enough of to mend the thousands of rural potholes) on such nonsensical suggestions.

Whereas the police routinely “consult”, it seems, with local “communities”  led by mullahs, the same courtesy does not seem to be accorded to other communities, whether they be minority communities such as Jews (as in the recent Maccabi scandal in Manchester) or largely white village communities in the rural parts of the English countryside. The latter are not against anyone visiting or coming to live in their areas. All they need is the desire to do so, not to have to be encouraged to do so by “diversity drives”. There are no barriers to any persons of colour visiting our national parks or any other areas of countryside. Perhaps they just don’t wish to.  Perhaps the activities, or lack of them, do not appeal. These days, most English people take individuals as they find them and are generally welcoming to all. The days of signs up in pubs saying “No Dogs, Blacks or Irish” may still be within living memory, but as far as I am aware, there have never been any signs anywhere saying “No Blacks or Muslims”.  If our countryside remains largely ‘white’, why is this a problem? The makeup of the country when I last looked was still majority white, in spite of successive governments trying extremely hard to ensure it doesn’t remain that way.

Having said that, there are large numbers of inner-city areas where the majority of the population is not white. Whilst there may not be any signs up saying “No Whites” no white person would feel very relaxed about visiting and should they do so would almost certainly feel unwelcome. This is in their own country. In some places, even the police are reluctant to enter. Is this a cause for concern or any attempts, Danish style, to change the make-up of these communities to ensure integration? Should these areas perhaps be made less “brown”?

Muslims have a cultural dislike of dogs as their religion says they are “unclean”. As probably more people are aware, they also view pigs as unclean (there are quite a lot of those in the countryside) and avoid eating any form of pork products. There are also prohibitions against keeping dogs as pets, except for specific purposes like guarding or herding. Many whose cultural inclinations are against or even fearful of dogs, are now living in a country where attitudes to dogs are markedly different. It is surely not the job of the indigenous population to change their cultural behaviour to suit incomers? This country has a long tradition of welcoming those from other countries and other cultures, but it is not unreasonable to expect the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, to apply. Should those from cultures where dogs are viewed with fear and disgust be calling the tune? Increasingly, particularly in Wales for example, PSPOs (Public Space Protection Orders) are being put in place to prevent people from allowing their dogs off leads. This is not good for the dogs which need to be allowed time to be dogs, to socialise with other dogs and exercise without being attached to their humans. In many cases, these PSPOs are being created to deal not only with a minority of irresponsible dog owners, but also to pander to those who object to the presence of dogs altogether.

Already current and recent Governments are accused of failing to support one of the bedrocks of British society, namely the traditional pub. Last year over a thousand pubs closed and many more are expected to shut up shop this year, as Rachel Reeves’ new business rates review is set to be the latest nail in the coffin for this national institution. Only two days ago, the chief executive of Fuller’s brewery lauded that well-known pub supporter, Nigel Farage, for being the only political leader to come up with a sensible plan to save Britain’s pubs, which he claimed had been neglected by governments for the last couple of decades. As has been pointed out in recent campaigns to save Britain’s pubs, these are often at the heart of village or community life. If Muslims find their ‘community’ elsewhere, that is not a reason to attempt to manipulate rural life to appeal to the cultural traditions of others.

It is time we regained a sense of pride in our country, its history and its traditions. For too long now we have been abjectly apologising for things our ancestors did, rewriting our history and ignoring our successes. If others wish to join us on our small island it is time they started doing so on our terms, not on theirs.  Our countryside is what it is; if settlers in this country or foreign tourists wish to visit it in a spirit of interest and enquiry then they are most welcome. Our quaint customs might astonish, amuse or bore them, but there is no reason at all that our councils and public bodies should be spending money paying people to work out how we can alter ourselves to accommodate outsiders or move aside so that the much-loved English countryside becomes something altogether different.