Friday, February 28, 2003
Ik ben een pools meisje

Thursday nights, I go straight from work to my heavily state-subsidised Dutch second language class and don't generally get home until after 10pm. This is not an optimal situation for me. I invariably do better in high intensity language classes and once per week - especially after a full work day - isn't good enough. But, the location is good - a mere three blocks from home - and I only pay €65 for a year's classes.

Second language education has changed some over the years. The curriculum used across Flanders includes a sort of continuing soap opera, told through 20 minute episodes on video at the beginning of each chapter and supplemented with back-story on cassettes and in the printed texts. It is the story of Paolo Sanseverino who is een student economie in Leuven and komt uit Italië and the Belgian friends he meets along the way, Bert Sels marketing manager en een beetje saai, Els Baart die werkt aan de universiteit and her jealous live-in boyfriend Peter Maas. Along the way, we encounter Bert's overbearing American mother Jennifer, the sexually repressed ex-flight attendant Ely (who it appears will soon be getting it on with Bert) and others. The soap is light comedy, and the production values are pretty good for such a small audience.

This is an adult program that emphasises real world contexts and life situations: unemployment, romantic situations, finding an apartment, dealing with doctors, etc. And, it must do this with a strict minimum of vocabulary and structure. The thinking nowadays is that people learn when they are immediately immersed in materials that they can comprehend. The task of learning a new language - which appears so daunting to start with - is much more easily accomplished when there is an ever present sense that things are comprehensible.

In line with this sort of thinking, the class went to see a play in Dutch for anderstaligen called Ik ben een pools meisje (I am a Polish girl.) The play itself was very much in the style of the rest of our curriculum, using puns, simple jokes and overplayed dialogue to enable a sense of full comprehension that may not actually translate into fluency in daily life.

Ik ben een pools meisje. Mijn vader komt uit Canada. Mijn moeder komt uit Italië. I heb zeven broers. Anek, Erek, Janek, Tadek, Davek, Sevek... en Zhusjka. Ik heb ook zussen. Vierentachtig!

Maar, ik woon nu hier. Zonder vader uit Canada. Zonder moeder uit Italië. Zonder hond. Ik heb geen hond. Ik hou niet van dieren. Ik hou van mensen. Maar mensen houden niet van mij. Waarom niet?

I am a Polish girl. My father is Canadian. My mother is Italian. I have seven brothers. Anek, Erek, Janek, Tadek, Davek, Sevek... and Zhushka. I also have sisters. Eighty-four!

But, I live here now. Without my Canadian father. Without my Italian mother. Without a dog. I have no dog. I don't like pets. I like people. But people don't like me. Why don't they?

In the lobby, the theatre company was selling bright red T-shirts printed with In Nederlands, a.u.b. Ik wil oefnen on the front. In Dutch, please. I need to practice. I considered buying one because this is a huge problem for us migrants in Flanders. Many immigrants here speak English or French, and very nearly all Flemish natives speak one or the other or both. Poor knowledge of Dutch is only a minor barrier for many of us. I have a good job, an apartment, a bank account and a Belgian university diploma and I have all this despite really poor Dutch. The locals just go ahead and speak English or French, without anyone even having to ask.

However, I didn't buy one because I thought last night was not a good time to advertise on the streets of Leuven that I'm an immigrant.

In Belgium, there is a federal election coming up. This is one of the motives for the Belgian state's resistance to war in Iraq. The war is unpopular and people are not going to forget between now and the next election. The election, however, also brings out the loons, and in Flanders that means the Vlaams Blok. "Fascists" if you listen to the local activists.

The far right had a demonstration scheduled for Leuven last night. I knew this because they had posters all over town. What I did not know until two days ago was that, first, the last time they held a pre-election rally in Leuven four years ago, there was a riot, and second, the demonstration was scheduled for the square directly in front of my apartment.

The first sign was the highly visible police presence and the cancellation of bus traffic after 7pm. I've seen and had to deal with the town cops in Leuven. It's hard to feel threatened by them. Whatever the American right may think of a country where the law requires you to possess and carry an ID at all times, Belgium is not a police state. In this town, it's a lot more Mayberry RFD than Nazi stormtroopers.

There were armoured riot vans all over town, concentrated right in front of my door. It was not the town cops who were out last night. It was federal police, with helmets and riot gear. And there were a lot of them. Cops make me nervous and I'm not big on brownshirts either. I was especially unenthused about having a front row seat for a riot in my own living room.

That was what greeted me as I left the play at 10 o'clock and got to my front door.

In the end, I need not have worried. Leuven is not a Vlaams Blok kind of town. The university is the single largest employer in the area, and with the university comes liberal professors and foreign students. The streets are full of off-white and dark skinned people speaking English and French among other things. There are a couple hundred Chinese students alone who've almost set up an alternative set of public facilities for themselves.

The brownshirts actually had to bus in demonstrators and there were certainly no more than 70 of them out there. There were probably as many cops as demonstrators and easily three times as many counter demonstrators. The whole business reminded me of nothing so much as that scene in the Blues Brothers with the Nazi march.

Jake: Hey, what's going on?
Officer: Ah, those bums won their court case so they're marching today.
Jake: What bums?
Officer: The fucking Nazi party.
Elwood: Illinois Nazis...
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

The demonstrators chanted, they sang some patriotic Flemish songs and they marched around. The counter-demonstrators chanted, taunted and used dirty language. Early on it became clear that the police weren't there to protect the public from the demonstrators, they were there to protect the demonstrators from the counter-demonstrators. In an hour or so it was all over without any violence I could see. This was not a major success for the Blok.

What struck me, however, was the dichotomy. Here, on the one hand, is a modern and remarkably sane society which seeks actively to integrate immigrants into economic life, and on the other a group of true believers in a Flemish nation that has only existed in a recognisable form for less than two centuries. As far as I can tell, income is not the thing which distinguishes them, nor the usual trappings of class. Language teachers do not strike me as people with huge incomes by comparison to workmen. The poorest people in Belgium are not the ones who vote Vlaams Blok, they are the immigrants in Brussels and Antwerp. Neither the demonstrators nor the counter-demonstrators nor the liberals who put on plays for foreign students represent the rich or the poor although they all might lay claim to such a status. Unlike America, I am unable to determine with any precision which Belgian parties and which social and political movements represent which classes. (In America it's much simpler. Both parties represent the moneyed class. One merely offers a better return on investment than the other.) Classical Marxist analysis fails me here.

There is a strong temptation to dismiss the Vlaams Blok as just a bunch of buttheads and move on. One could look at this as a "modern" vs. "post-modern" conflict, except that I am just not happy with the result. There is something different going on in these new European nationalist movements.

This brings me into the heavy stuff. Namely Slavoj Zizek, and specifically Zizek talking about Lenin.

[P]erhaps, the ultimate irony of history will be that, in the same way Lenin's vision of the "central bank Socialism" can be properly read only retroactively, from today's World Wide Web, the Soviet Union provided the first model of the developed "post-property" society, of the true "late capitalism" in which the ruling class will be defined by the direct access to the (informational, administrative) means of social power and control and to other material and social privileges: the point will no longer be to own companies, but directly to run them, to have the right to use a private jet, to have access to top health care, etc. - privileges which will be acquired not by property, but by other (educational, managerial, etc.) mechanisms.

One of the ideas I tinker with on and off is this idea advanced by Zizek about the nature of class today or perhaps in the future. Ownership of productive assets these days is a complicated matter. Companies are as often as not owned by retirement funds or other mutual investment plans. Ownership is distributed, even if it is not as widely distributed as one would like. Very rich people tend to spread their assets across a lot of different investments. As the Enron debacle shows - or any investigation of business practices in France or Japan - the good life nowadays is had not by owning assets but by controlling them.

I would like to suggest that this class difference extends beyond the executive suite into other areas of society. Even if the brownshirts and the liberals are not truly distinguished by personal ownership of property, there is a big difference between the two in terms of social power. The ideology of the one is reflected in public institutions, on TV, in the schools and through the vestiges of "political correctness." The language teacher's income may not be hugely larger than the construction foreman's, but one of them enjoys a great deal more respect than the other. And respect sometimes leads to more material privileges.

In Belgium, this struck home with a discussion of "extra-legal benefits" in my Dutch class a few months ago. We were discussing restaurant vocabulary and the professor introduced the word maaltijd, which means more or less meal. She asked if we understood the word and I was the only one who did. So, she looked at me and I replied Ik heb vandaag mijn maaltijdcheques gekregen. I got my meal vouchers today. Belgian meal vouchers are a partially non-taxable benefit. Most people save them up and use them to buy groceries instead of buying restaurant meals. They pay perhaps a third to a half of my grocery bills. People sometimes get company cars, company apartments or frequent flyer benefits from their jobs. All of this can be partially tax free and in Belgium can represent a significant chunk of compensation.

In the US, people often take jobs with lower cash salaries but good benefits instead of jobs with better pay but where services have to be purchased at market prices. Even in the computer industry, I've done that. I worked at a cushy job with full benefits while my wife took contract jobs that paid as much as 50% more but had no benefits. As long as one of us had full medical, the other was covered. The behaviour in Belgium seems quite similar, except that it's not medical benefits that are usually the issue. This kind of extra compensation tends to be attached to professional jobs and reflect positions where workers possess specialised knowledge.

Therefore, it is possible that the far right vs. centre conflict in Belgium has class roots. The more liberal view of Belgian society quite clearly meshes better with the nascent globalism - or at least pan-Europeanism - of the business managers. It is the ideology taught in schools and seen on TV. Its believers tend to be the people already empowered by the existing circumstances and its success is their success. This is the ideology of people who possess specialised skills necessary to society and who exercise power by virtue of the control those skills give them over the means of production.

The people who vote with radical populist movements are the ones who feel disempowered by these same trends. For all the social benefits they receive simply because they live in a social democracy, they do not possess much respect nor have they meaningful social power. They are disempowered by the advance of the other class.

All of this is a something of a caricature, and I'd like to use a less loaded word than "means of production", but if the shoe fits...

All this leads me to a conclusion so contrary to the conventional wisdom that I hesitate to advance it. The class which is able to exercise power through access to specialised knowledge is not the class most likely to advance the cause of classical capitalism. I have a copy of Ian Angell's New Barbarian Manifesto which claims exactly the opposite, that the knowledge class is best served by a social Darwinist sort of extreme capitalism, and nation-states represent little more than pimps for their ill-educated workforce. This sort of thinking also underlies a lot of American rhetoric about "entrepreneurship."

Does social democracy - which appears to be succeeding quite well when you look at it globally and over the last 50 years instead of from an exclusively American perspective over the last two decades - entail a different kind of class structure? Is this sort of thing the wave of the future? Redistributing money and guaranteeing social services does not necessarily redistribute power and can easily reinforce the power of a class that does not need to rely on money explicitly.

Of course, this does not mean - as vulgar Hayekites might claim - that any sort of state intervention in economic affairs leads inevitably to tyranny. Capitalism was also an egalitarian movement by comparison to its predecessors, and it definitely reinforces the power of a particular class. There is nothing wrong in pointing out that rule by one class (or at least by its ideology) would likely be better in many ways than some other option. But, it does compel me to ask if advocating social democracy on the grounds that it undermines class society and promote equality as a whole isn't a non-starter. It does make me wonder if the problem of poorly distributed social power isn't as large a problem as poorly distributed access to resources.

But then, this a lot to get out of a cheesy play and a minor demonstration.

I had an interesting evening last night, and there is a long post on it that I'll put up in few hours. One reason this place is called "Pedantry" is that I - alas like Steven den Beste - work best in a longer format than is typical in the blogsphere.

If someone wants to do a "Shorter Martens" the position is currently open.

Thursday, February 27, 2003
A big hello to everyone who got here from D^2. I haven't drawn much attention to my little corner of the web before, but I guess there's going to be company now.

So, lacking an FAQ let me answer the one question I keep asking myself:

Yes, I really did study to write dictionaries - for two and a half years in a Canadian graduate school - and despite a life-long love of reference books, no, I can't spell worth a damn. Furthermore, without an editing cycle of at least a day my syntax is atrocious. I drop words, revise sentences and forget to delete the unneeded bits, and mix up topics. I'm lysdexic, dod gamnit!

Therefore, posts may change slightly as I reread them and cringe.

Why are Americans so fat? (via Vaguely Right)

This posting on Vaguely Right points to a new NBER working paper: An Economic Analysis of Adult Obesity. The abstract contains the following juicy bit:

Their analysis shows that more time devoted to work and less time devoted to the labor-intensive activity of food preparation in the home favors the low cost and convenience of fast food and prepared food. These foods have extremely high caloric density, are satisfying and habit forming, and they almost certainly contribute to the obesity epidemic. For this reason, the incidence of obesity is most prevalent among those sectors of the workforce (chiefly low-end wage earners, women, non-whites) whose real income has fallen even as more hours are devoted to work.

The researchers acknowledge that food prepared in the home is nominally cheaper than purchasing food in restaurants. But in view of the value of time that must be devoted to shopping and cooking, as compared to the high-calorie, low-cost, mass-production meals available at ever-increasingly convenient locations (with ever diminishing travel and waiting time), the fast-food option appears to make good economic, if not health, sense.

Ms. Right also points out that Daniel Davies of D^2 Digest said it first. She adds:

I also find it endearing that the paper provides so much fodder for right-left bickering. Consider the left winger's response to this research: "Arg! Damn evil capitalist fast food companies are making us fat, while other damn capitalists pay us less and make us work longer hours so we have to eat damn capitalist fast food!" And the right winger: "Stupid idiotarian liberals crusading against smoking and for woman working outside the home have made us fat! Stupid idiotarian liberals should let us smoke again and keep our wives at home!"


Wednesday, February 26, 2003
I came across this in, of all places, the National Review Online. It is primarily about the "Lost Cause" myth about the American Civil War. Here's the bit I'd like to highlight:

Thus the alleged right to break up the government when the minority did not get its way was really nothing but political blackmail. The attempted dissolution of the Union in 1860 and 1861 was the final act in a drama that had been under way since the 1830s, only this time the blackmailers' bluff was called.

In 1833, the minority threatened secession over the tariff. The majority gave in. In 1835, it threatened secession if Congress did not prohibit discussions of slavery during its own proceedings. The majority gave in and passed a "Gag Rule." In 1850, the minority threatened secession unless Congress forced the return of fugitive slaves without a prior jury trial. The majority agreed to pass a Fugitive Slave Act. In 1854 the minority threatened secession unless the Missouri Compromise was repealed, opening Kansas to slavery. Again, the majority acquiesced rather than see the Union smashed.

But the majority could only go so far in permitting minority blackmail to override the constitutional will of the majority. At the Democratic Convention in Charleston, held in April 1860, the majority finally refused the blackmailers' demand ó for a federal guarantee of slave property in all US territories. The delegates from the deep south walked out, splitting the Democratic party and ensuring that Lincoln would be elected by a plurality.

Now compare with this:

Mr. Bush's comments were not the first time he had threatened to sidestep the UN as it pushes to disarm Iraq, but these remarks come as U.S. officials lobby furiously to garner the nine votes needed to pass a new Security Council resolution from a grab bag of smaller countries, including Angola, Guinea and Cameroon.

Faced with the prospect of a crisis that could destroy the UN, even Mr. Bush's political foes say he'll succeed in getting the wavering countries to sign on.

"They'll get the nine votes," said Senator Joseph Biden, top Democrat on the U.S. Senate's foreign-relations committee.

"I think they're going to sit down and conclude that if in fact they don't give us the nine votes ... that essentially as long as this President is President, the UN is irrelevant," he told reporters.

There appears to be a problem with the comments on At least one comment has dissappeared, so please excuse me if more do.

Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Disco and the Republican Party

"Disco" and the "GOP" are not concepts that usually go together. Until 5 minutes ago, I certainly wouldn't have linked them together.

Let me make this short story a bit longer by letting you in on the rather odd chain of events leading me to the document below. The wife recently got her APO address. For those of you unfamiliar with APO and FPO, it is a US government service offered to American military personel and government employees stationed abroad. They get a US address - you need only pay US postage to send to it - and the Federal Government pays to deliver the package to you out wherever you are.

So, my first thought was to place an order. Among other books, I ordered American Hero, a book I'd been meaning to get to. The wife and I went down to Luxembourg over the weekend, so I had a long train ride to read it in and I finished yesterday morning.

American Hero is a Hollywood detective/conspiracy novel about how Lee Atwater wrote a memo suggesting George Bush hire a movie producer to set up a war so he could get reelected. This war turns out to be the Gulf War. It is an entertaining enough novel, although it's pretty lightweight.

That got me thinking about Lee Atwater. He was the man more singularly responsible for the Republican Party's many narrow and difficult to explain election victories than any one other person. He crafted the famous "southern strategy" of pandering to southern racists while talking a much more mainstream line on race in the open. He turned Willie Horton into Dukakis' running mate in 1988. He invented "welfare queens." He, in short, was one of the people with the greatest responsibility for the current state of American political life.

Lee Atwater - mercenary, racist and consummate political strategist - died in 1990 of brain cancer, age 40. I was 19. I remember hearing about it on TV and knowing who Atwater was, but that was 12 years ago. So I looked him up on the Net.

As far as I can tell, Atwater is the only major conservative figure not to have a fan site on the web. I'm thinking of setting one up just so that somebody out there can find out about him when they hear his name. Among the details of Lee Atwater's life that you can find out on the web is that he was a fairly serious R&B musician.

Lee gettin' down.

So, here is the man more responsible than any one other person for the disempowerment of the civil rights movement in the 1980's, and he is into the blackest of black southern 1970's music. This dichotomy is hard to explain and I won't even try to. It would be like findng out that Pat Buchanan keeps a shelf of Public Enemy CD's.

However, thanks to Google I also found this amusing bit of work. Having just read American Hero, my mind was already primed for thinking about Lee Atwater and political conspiracy, and I couldn't resist it. It has been taken off the web, but I have rescued it from Google's cache and am posting it here in its entirety. I have not managed to determine the author. It was originally up at

Lee Atwater and the Destruction of Black Music

Several times in the past year when I have been asked by younger people & by some older people what happened to the FUNK movement? What caused it to end?

My response is a usually a multi-dimensional one involving drugs, the economies of employing/traveling with a big band, the coming of age of the technology that produced rap, and a conspiracy involving the government. The response is usually something along the lines ofÖ "ok that makes sense except for the part about the government."

Some of you younger fans may not remember this guy and some of you old heads out there are probably wondering why I am bringing his name up in this context. Lee Atwater was Ronald Reaganís campaign manager during the 1980 presidential election and he had a huge influence over just where we are with todayís music. During the 1980 campaign Lee Atwater supplied Ronald Reagan with a vicious campaign strategy designed to make then President Jimmy Carter look like a "n*gga lovin homo" who couldnít even defend Americans abroad in Iran. It was Lee Atwater who came up with the term "Welfare Queen" with respect to Black women shopping at the supermarket, the phrase "Evil Empire" with respect to the Soviet Union and the notion that the United States was the last world power.

Yes, it was Lee Atwater who devised the catch phrases & buzz words that Ronald Reagan was able to use to paint a picture of an America that had gone "too far" & a government that was so out of touch with the people in middle America , that people (Black people) were actually being paid to go to "no show jobs" (CETA program). This was for the Atwater/Reagan campaign and their supporters the very antithesis of the "shining house on the hill" version of America they were peddling.

In 1980 Lee Atwater was a "30-ish", "yuppieish", young man from South Carolina who had gone to college in the 60ís listening to rock ní roll, smoking pot & having a good time. After he graduated from college, Lee Atwater joined the public relations firm of Harry Dent. Mr Dent was the man responsible for the successful "southern strategy" employed by the "big Dick" in the 1968 presidential campaign during the 1968 campaign. Lee Atwater although young by comparison to people like Nixon & Reagan, understood some of the core attitudes of Americans and how to exploit them for purposes of wining a election. Down south this is a tactic known as "race baiting" and has served the cause of many winning candidates in the south. Lee Atwater knew how to exploit the worst fears in people to win an election. He was the one who created Ronald Reaganís "unspoken campaign promise" to effectively put an end to the American Civil Rights movement after the 1980 election.

One of the most vivid images for me of the 1980 presidential campaign is that of Lee Atwater at one of the inaugural parties on stage playing the guitar with BB King.

Thatís right. Lee Atwater was a HUGE fan of Rhythm & Blues music!!!

This meant that Lee Atwater southern, racist, vile & vicious person also had a keen understanding of what was going on in the Black community of the late 1970ís.

Lee Atwater knew that he could create vivid images via Ronald Reagan of a country where somehow lazy & shiftless welfare queens & kings with CETA jobs were somehow buying lobsters with food stamps donated by the poor & suffering white folks. Lee Atwater also knew that beyond creating a sense of rage among white voters that to actually end the Civil Rights movement he would actually need the help of Black people in doing so.

In my opinion, historians will someday look back upon the 1970ís and equate it in many respects to the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920ís. For many Black folks, the 1970ís resulted in the full flowering of a positive culture that had been "stifled" as a result of Amerikaís racist past Many Black people at this time were finally beginning to enjoy the fruits of the Civil Rights struggle. While itís true that some government programs such as affirmative action and CETA played a role in this, the real catalyst was the Civil Rights Movement itself. The general perception was that it had been successfully concluded and now it was celebration time.

Black culture flourished during the 1970ís, and it flourished in a way that had not been seen since the 1920ís. "Black" became beautiful for the very first time in Amerikaís history and the culture was in "full effect". Afros, Dashikiís and Malcolm X became the order of the day for teenagers such as myself at that time. For the first time we began to see Black politicians making serious moves all over the country. Big cities started electing Black mayors and congressmen.. Hollywood began producing a ton of Black oriented movies and TV shows that began to show Blacks as much more than "servants & slaves".

As a teenager during this time, for me personally and for most of the people I hung around with at that time, the music itself core of all of this positive expression.

The decade had started out with the music of Jimi Hendrix, Sly Stone, James Brown, Miles Davis, Funkadelic and others completely revolutionizing Black music by somehow blending together jazz, blues, soul & rock ní roll and inventing something that today we call FUNK. Later in the decade this tradition was carried forward by artists such as Weather Report, Ronnie Laws, Ohio Players, Earth Wind and Fire, Parliment, Gil Scott Heron and many others. This music was not just a "deep groove", it also made the listener think about their lives and the world around them. It embraced not only the concept of being Black in Amerika, but also made the connection to the Caribbean, Afrika and elsewhere. And it was all positive, not "anti white", but "pro black". This force was so powerful in fact that even white people caught the "groove". White people catching this groove manifested itself in the form of Disco.

Today some people look back at disco and either laugh at or seek to discredit it for various reasons, such as itís excesses. Those people are DEAD WRONG. Today we can look back at disco and place it in the proper perspective. Clearly disco is an extension of FUNK, not just as far as the musical groove, but also as a "cultural/social/political "groove" of unity. Not just the unity among Black people that FUNK spoke of, but a type of unity that had never occurred before. You see, for me the bottom line about disco was that it was for all practical purposes the LAST VOLUNTARY ATTEMPT BY THE UNITED STATES TO INTEGRATE ITSELF.

To that end it was largely successful and this is what Lee Atwater had to attack and make white people (and Blacks) fearful of. One of the objectives of the Civil Rights movement was an integrated society, where people would be judged not by their color, but instead by the "content of their character". What better place to be judged for the content of your character than on Friday & Saturday nights with a mix of people that crossed every possible demographic line ?

The social setting created by the advent of discos was something that is very unsettling to racists (both Black and White). The very idea of a legitimized place where "race mixing" might occur is something that this country wasnít quite ready for. Of course it was this very fear that led to the artificial separation between Black & White music in the first place leading to the creation of the "artificial sub categories" known as "Rock" & "Soul". The FUNK (jazz, blues, soul & rock ní roll) brought it all back together once again, creating a positive & universal groove that created the atmosphere for the emergence of disco.

Disco (and along with it FUNK) had to be destroyed, and Lee Atwater was able orchestrate this during the late 70ís & early 80ís. Lee Atwater knew that by destroying the culture, he could destroy the movement.

Consider for a moment these 4 "genres":

∑ Country
∑ Blues

∑ Punk
∑ Rap

Do you think itís any accident that these "genres" were promoted as mainstream at the same time that "disco records" were being blown up in a baseball stadium in Chicago??

The predominant audience today for these "genres" are middle/upper income whites, the same target audience that Lee Atwater was after. Itís also no mistake that each one of these "genres" is promoted as being "pure and untainted", nothing of course could be further from the truth.

Think back to the election itself. Jimmy Carter and his staff were often seen in the company of Black folks, hanging out at places like Studio 54 and "winking" at drug use. On the other hand Ronald Reagan and George Bush were most often seen wearing cowboy hats going to church and listening to country music. Reagan was running around saying things like "We didnít have any racial problems when I was a boy growing up in Dixon Illinois". Of course what he failed to mention was that there werenít any Black people around . George Bush on the other hand was used to being around Black people. Raised as the son of a wealthy Connecticut US Senator, I have no doubt that George Bush was exposed to the many Black butlers/maids that likely worked in his home and served his every need as an adult. Jimmy Carter (& his corn poke family) were the types of "po white trash", that are needed in order for integration to occur. As a matter of fact, the presence of "po white trash" is the ONLY way for integration to occur, this was proven by both Jimmy Carter & Lyndon Johnson. Meanwhile Lee Atwater was saying that none of this was racist because he loved Black music and culture because he was a "Blues fan" and that "Blues" was "real/authentic Black music" (enter the "Blues Brothers"), as opposed to disco.

So, just what were Black people themselves doing at this point??

∑ NothingÖ absolutely NOTHING after all the Civil Rights era was overÖ right??
∑ No need to be concerned about maintaining or advancing anything... right??
∑ Heck we donít even need those "symbols" of Black pride anymore like Afroís and Dashikiís... right??
∑ As a matter of fact, itís even cool for us to go back to straightening our hair again (jheri curl) after all it was all just a "fad"... right??
∑ Oh & by the way, lets make a mockery of our recent musical past by having our young people curse and degrade each other while the most positive music ever produced in this countryís history is playing in the background.
∑ As a matter of fact we donít need any of it... we can be just like the white folks and become "buppies" as we lose ourselves in a "desert of white powder" and become totally "sedated"... right??

Black folks did just what Lee Atwater wanted them to do and as a result a freedom movement and the music that was at the foundation of it was lost. The failure of Black people to "institutionalize" the positive culture they had created in the 70ís, led directly to itís destruction. It opened the door for a subtle attack by Lee Atwater, resuling in the mainstream now defining what Black culture is (Gangsta Rap", "Smooth Jazz" and "Todayís R&B" )as opposed to Black people defining it for themselves.

Today we are left musically with the triple threat "horror story" of "Gangsta Rap", "Smooth Jazz" and "Todayís R&B" as the descendants of the music that literally ignited a culture during the 1970ís.

We can thank Lee Atwater for that.

I should add that in Europe the music scene - especially the ever popular if somewhat slippery electronica/house/dance/techno scene - still draws fairly heavily on what are clearly disco roots. I have heard at least one serious music critic treat it as the logical outcome of disco.

I never have really understood why disco failed. My father hated it in public and secretly kept a large Abba collection. I think he felt as ashamed as of it as his powder blue leisure suit. Yet, by all accounts disco was a very popular and successful style of music. If it lacked the larger meaning of "serious" music, so what? Nobody really wants to live in a world with nothing but heavy stuff. Disco was still alive in Europe when I first lived here in '89, so it was clearly not on its last legs artistically.

Of course, Europe didn't have Lee Atwater.