Page Two
By Louis Black, Fri., July 4, 2003
Which made me realize that, during my time in Austin, many cultural generations have passed. I've been here for the phenomenon; the canonization of the phenomenon when it's passed; the hostile reaction to the canonization when it becomes consistent, chanted testifying; until, finally, not only has the phenomenon passed, but canonization and celebration as well. It hardly ever happens anymore that, on the way out from a great concert, someone will loudly claim, "Sure, that show was great, but it still wasn't anything compared to Springsteen's first time at the Armadillo World Headquarters. You should have been here then; that was something!!" I was here, for example, when one of the most dominant groups was Joe Ely's extraordinary band, featuring Jesse Taylor on guitar, Lloyd Maines on pedal steel, and Ponty Bone on accordion, among other wonderful players. During the following decade and then some, when newcomers raved about Ely, they were invariably told, "Yeah, he was great tonight, but you should have seen him with the band back then. They were the best there ever was!" Seemingly endless, mostly incoherent reminiscences of nights at Gruene Hall or Antone's were sure to follow, past the point of being merely annoying and on to the realm of offensive, obnoxious obsession. After a while, if one began simply to reference the great Ely band, it would lead to disgusted sighs, accompanied by rolled eyeballs and, eventually, at first muttered, then explicit, threats. Classic Austin clichés among the enormous canon that newcomers were forced to suffer through included everything from how you should have heard Stevie Ray Vaughan at the Rome Inn back when there weren't a dozen people in the audience to being told what you missed at the first incarnation of Soap Creek Saloon, when its location in West Lake was wilderness, not suburban subdevelopment. Now all incarnations of Soap Creek are long gone, there is a statue of SRV, and to rave about the great Ely band would have a newcomer ask if you're talking about the member of the Flatlanders or commenting on the father of one of the Dixie Chicks.
In Austin, the past is revered, and that reverence is enthusiastically derided. The past haunts and defines the present, but it grows tiresome awfully quickly to hear about how it used to be while you're busy navigating what is. Especially when those telling the tales invariably look like hippies who never quite learned how to dress like grownups. Which means us.
So here's another volume in our look at Austin past. We expect to do more, and suggestions for topics are welcome. My major work on the Stallion is coming along nicely (chicken-fried steak, salad, and french fries for a dollar -- back when I was in graduate school this was a litmus first-date test, and anyone who survived would probably be able to stand me, at least for a while).
As predicted, pundits' columns and many letters to the editor have appeared decrying the Supreme Court's affirmative-action decision. All bemoan the loss of constitutionally guaranteed equality. Most love Martin Luther King and are almost sickened by the death of his dream. All want people to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Many are obviously written by Anglos, who've been so nonchalantly advantaged their whole lives by the color of their skin they take it as a fact of nature rather than a social prejudice. Thirty years after centuries of discrimination, we're expected to concede that the playing field is level, that we're all equal, and to try to correct past transgressions is horribly unconstitutional. These discussions are so mind-numbing as to be ludicrous.
The good news is that I'm sure most of those people are volunteering time and money to work with economically and socially disadvantaged children to make this world a better place. Most are also likely opposed to the Bush tax cuts, as well as to the federal and state decimation of the social safety net, which compounds the results of historic discrimination rather than address them. Or maybe it's just that rarely have so many racists so lovingly quoted Martin Luther King, which in itself may be a plus, if not that much of one. We should all be quick to assure them that his dream of equality, tied to no timetable, is alive and well and that affirmative action is a tool for its realization, not a detriment.
If one truly believes in a colorblind society, where the Constitution is so revered that no discrimination of any kind is allowed, the good news is that, at its worst, affirmative action is more a historical aberration than a constitutional conflagration. Which is why I'm suspicious of so much of the hysterically charged speech. If one really believes in equality, how disturbing can this policy be, especially in light of history? How many students, even over the next couple of decades, will this positively impact? What tiny part of a single percent is that of those discriminated against in the last couple of centuries? If ever a social policy boasted planned obsolescence, this is it. Already, it is decried by some of the minority community; witness Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent. Inevitably, especially the more effective it proves, the minority community will lead the charge against it. They've already begun.
In a letter to "Postmarks," Michael Bluejay cites many groups he feels are as to blame for Bush's victory as the Naderites, wondering why I don't "blame" them as well. I disagree with those who voted for Bush, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, because they believed in him and the politics he represented. A representative democratic republic, however, virtually mandates voter dissatisfaction, leaving it in no way associated with blame. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Republican operatives, and the Supreme Court acted disgracefully. Republicans have discovered the electoral potency of staying on message (short-sentence positions and strategic pandering unrelated to actual legislation or policy), while the Democrats are off message and without leadership. None of this has much to do with my attitude toward the Naderites.
Core is my suspicion that many Nader supporters and I share similar beliefs. Many, hoping to refocus national concerns, voted for him as a way of punishing the Democratic Party, claiming there was no longer any difference between Democrats and Republicans. These Naderites voted in defense of reform, in pursuit of progressive ideals, with a sense that the government needed to be more responsive to the people and less to special interests. Ironically, a vote for Nader proved to be a vote against most of what was being advocated. Polemical posturing does nothing to alleviate the real-world devastation suffered by the very people -- the working poor, labor, children, minorities -- and causes -- education, health, the environment -- supposedly supported. Given their righteous denial of responsibility, there is no reason to think the next election won't find many of them voting the same way again, consequences be damned. 
