When you think of racism as a subset of bullying (someone with power using it to take advantage of a person with a disadvantage), then the inherent racism of countrysides is obvious. If you don't own it, you're at a disadvantage. People with money or land may not intentionally be racist, but anyone with ownership tends to be protective of that ownership. Open spaces are havens of bullying because there just aren't enough people around to catch and influence bad behavior (even if said people would want to). Throw in some extra targeting advantage (skin color, gender, poverty), and 'country folk' will take advantage as much as anyone else: but per capita, they have an inertial advantage in lower population per square mile preventing civilization.

A kid in the city who spends his days killing squirrels is going to get called out. A kid in the countryside is just 'hunting'. The same disparity applies to racism or other bullying activities: the country context allows more selfishness. It demands it when it comes to caring for property under capitalism, but there just isn't the time or socializing infrastructure presence to compare to what cities can afford.

Country folk are 'free' to live in the ways their parents were, and to stumble through social interactions with strangers. Urban life demands change at a faster, more direct pace toward cooperation (but often leads to unnecessary strife).

It takes a lot longer to change the countryside by education and interaction because there just isn't as much formal education and civil discourse. It will always seem 'behind the times'.