I 'll Change If You Vote Me In As The Pres...

Out of all of the images of yesterday's events in Memphis that were broadcast in Britain, the most surprising for me, but also ironically the most heart-warming, was the sight of Republican nominee John McCain standing at the balcony where Dr King was killed and being shown around the museum. The fulsome praise which he heaped upon Dr King and the admiration for his legacy which he expressed was exemplary, and I imagine they took quite a bit of political courage from a man who, throughout most of his life, had not in his own words "even considered" the significance of the Civil Rights Movement, and had frequently in his career campaigned and voted against the institution of a National Martin Luther King Day, and also the establishment of that holiday in his state of Arizona.

How did Senator McCain come to this point of view? Well, I imagine that his early upbringing was typical of many white suburban Americans in the 40s, still in a time when segregation was considered by much of white America as an acceptable fact of life. In his own words in an interview, the Senator described further:

"I had not been involved in the issue. I had come from being in the military to running for Congress in a state that did not have a large African American population."

So for Senator McCain, other issues such as Cold War foreign policy and economics occupied his mind at that time. The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s did not inspire or interest him. By the 1960s, he would have been heavily involved in the military - which he describes as having been an equal-opportunities environment. Compared to the rest of America at that time, he would have been right (though it was far from a paradise), and I can understand why at the time he might then have thought that civil rights protest was unnecessary and divisive. It is an uninspiring story, and reveals a deep lack of empathy and ability for analysing social issues, a disturbing tendency to go along with the flow and follow the herd of opinion, to blame the victim of injustice for not being strong enough to sort out their own problems, but it fits with where many similar young white men might have been at that time.

After this, the Senator was a POW in Vietnam, and he has described how his torturers used events like protests and race riots to try to sap the morale of the prisoners, portraying a nation in turmoil. I can understand how this might emotionally turn the Senator against expressions of admiration for the Civil Rights Movement, as the effects of torture do not make it easy to judge and evaluate events gleaned from patchy scraps of news easy. It is a shame that he had not thought more deeply about the numerous images of the fight against racial injustice which he had been exposed to on televisions and simply walking around any American town before his capture.

However, from his entry into politics, Senator McCain had the means, advice and political duty to learn the truth. His record stands up to now as a sorry testament to his ability for self-reflection. It took him literally decades to abandon his trenchant position opposing Martin Luther King Day, and in the meantime, because he had political position, he was able to add his vote to preventing Arizona joining the rest of the Union in celebrating Dr King's life.

It seems that in the meantime, John McCain has grappled with how his experiences of imprisonment and the experience of racism in America both highlight injustice and indignity. I hope that his conversion is a heartfelt and a genuine one. To be sure that Senator McCain remembers, I have chosen a song from an old nemesis, Stevie Wonder, one of the originators of the idea of Martin Luther King Day, which will serve as a reminder.

Stevie Wonder - Big Brother (from Motown LP 'Talking Book STMA8007) 1972

For this post I read an interesting debate at the Chicago Tribune website.

I Could Never Be President!

Race in US politics has always determined the heights of possible ambition. Is this about to change at the highest level? Jesse Jackson succeeded to the Democratic Party nomination. Will Senator Barack Obama first take the nomination and then the Presidency? That brings up very exciting possibilities. Mr Obama has strong family ties to Kenya, and supports local schools in his grandmother's town. I feel that such a man, if elected President, would therefore have a radically different perspective on the USA's relationship with the Third World. Then again, I feel less comfortable with his blanket praise for Ronald Reagan's ability to 'change' the entire nation. Ronnie, and even more so Nancy, have many great achievements in their favour, particularly in the sphere of the conclusion of the Cold War. However, domestically, the USA could not have been further from the goals of the Great Society during his Presidency. Maybe this comment by Obama explains what happened next...

On the other side, is the warning word of the cynic. Ironically, it was the Come-Back Kid himself, Bill Clinton, sometimes nicknamed 'the first black President' who, by referring to the rise of less experienced Obama as a 'kid' in 'the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen' left himself open to the charge of having a paternalist attitude. Don't set your hopes too high, he seems to suggest. I think it was the Reagan jibe that made him snap. To his credit, Bill did then make an attempt at amends, telephoning Rev Al Sharpton's radio show to tell him that "He [Obama] had put together a great campaign... he might win." Ah, Bill, you charmer. I can never stay made at you. You'd still make a great First Man. And when I look at certain policy proposals supported by Hillary, such as a health care or insurance scheme for all Americans regardless of wealth, I am of the view that Hillary too could make a President who made a difference.

However, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff had by this time already proceeded much further in their politicking, in a manner that must leave her husband despairing. She discussed the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King Jr in the run up to the anniversary of his birth, and decided to give an ad hoc lecture on the importance of President Johnson in implementing civil-rights reform. Be it true that Martin Luther King could not alone in 1963 sway the politicians to support change. And it is one of those ironies of history that it was actually the career southern politician Lyndon Johnson, and not the dashing John Kennedy, who would actually turn out to care about civil rights and have the political skills to push them through Congress. Yet, to deny one of these facts over the other is to deny the obvious interplay between them. Historical factors do not work in isolation. Johnson knew very well his chance to pass the Civil Rights Act on 1964 depended on the up-swell of despair and human idealism that followed the death of a President and the mobilisation of that idealism by activists inspired by the speeches of hope given by Martin Luther King. Every one of those ordinary, extraordinary people who stood up and did something made a difference, as Johnson could refer to the popular movement and apply pressure to the stalwarts and cynics in the Congress.

Now, maybe Hillary Clinton, when she reflects a little out away from Washington, will come to see this, and the contribution of so many. What to say about the Clinton staff member, though, who briefed journalists that one reason not to choose Barack Obama as presidential candidate is that someone might want to assassinate him? Can the currency of civic duty be so debased that some would accept meekly the authority of an assassin to determine who should or should not stand in democratic election? And once again, skin colour stands as the shibboleth that America is too afraid to confront? No, too many times that has been allowed. No more, not this time.

I'm going to play Johnnie Taylor's I Could Never Be President, recorded in 1969. Johnnie is having one of those dilemmas we all have - should he be President and end discrimination and poverty, or spend time loving his woman. Or, in Bill's case, women. Now, I've gone through a half dozen changes of mind on what exactly this song is trying to infer in the light of recent events. It has the word President in it. Listen, then make a difference in your community, by using your voice and your vote. I Could Never Be President? Why the hell not?

Johnnie Taylor - I Could Never Be President (Stax 0046) June 1969

I'm sure this has been all over the press in the USA, but here is a link to a news report if you haven't heard the furor: Daily Telegraph report

Stop The Violence

Recently, a series of shootings involving young people have hit the headlines in Britain. These tragedies have ignited a debate about the issue of gun use among young people. Most recently, an 11-year old boy named Rhys Jones was shot dead by a youth riding a bmx bike while walking home in Croxteth, Liverpool.

The number of murders involving firearms in Britain is far smaller than in the United States, which is why they have had such a national media impact. Murders involving hand guns have actually fallen in the past year, and killings involving young people have actually fallen dramatically - by half - in recent years, not risen. The worry is that this could be a temporary lull. Woundings involving firearms have risen from around 850 woundings per year five years ago to around 4000 last year. Possibly more worrying is the much higher rise in the carrying of knives. People involved in the drugs trade are bringing weapons onto the street as part of their business and needlessly putting young people at risk. Even more irresponsibly, they are putting some of those weapons into the hands of young people, either when they dispose of them or when they recruit the impressionable into doing their errands. Worse, many of those young people who choose to carry a knife are not doing so because they want to be criminals, but because they feel scared in the communities that drug gangs are preying upon.

What is so sad is that young people are no different today than at any time in the past fifty years, and nor are the problems they encounter as they enter young adulthood. We should be able to surmount most of them and give every child a meaningful future. And most young people are reaching for that future. Young people today are working harder and achieving more in education than ever before. They are not irredeemable, as some tabloids like to assume. The trouble is that for the ones who do drop out and become dissaffected, they are less prepared for technical and trade careers, and there is now an established underworld that habitually uses guns and knives for 'respect' to fall into, should they happen to live in areas where the trade in drugs has grown. Over half of all incidents involving weapons occur in a handful of cities: London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool amongst them. So for those young people that we miss, the ones we fail, the consequences can be higher than they used to be in these communities.

So for all of us, if we want to stop the violence from escalating, we have to try harder to support young people. Spend time with them, do our jobs as parents and families, talk with them, set an example, work with our neighbours to put our neighbourhoods in order, help them with their schoolwork, make sure they do it, provide training in trades as well as academic subjects and office skills, improve the surroundings so they are safer, talk to them about the adult world before they are faced with it, stop bombarding them with commercials and commodities, play with them, set up clubs and run activities that give young people hobbies and interests, teach them how to talk to people and communicate, get young people involved in helping others, get the police on the beat again and people talking to them (people, you have to talk to the police if they are going to solve murders). As an aside, it wouldn't hurt if we could cut out the casual drug use at dinner parties and in university digs. They exacerbate the problems of communities they don't live in. Where do those people think drugs come from? A fairtrade stall?

Britain is still a remarkably safe place to grow up. What better time to start to make it even safer and fulfilling?

Gil Scott-Heron wrote today's song to comment upon the impact of hand-gun violence on urban communities in the USA, and the false sense of security that a weapon provides.

We have to get the message across to young people, across the world, that carrying a weapon might feel as if it provides protection and a sense of power in an adult world, but that in fact it will actually make their lives and community less safe. In the United Kingdom, the overwhelming majority of gun and knife wound victims (for in fact it is the carrying of knives that has actually risen more steeply) were carrying weapons of their own. It can act as a provocation to others who are carrying a weapon if you are known to carry or produce yours - the chances are that the other boy or girl is going to want to live up your your challenge, and you have just raised the stakes to a dangerous level. Now you are in this situation, the next step is more likely to be that you will use your weapon. The consequences are enormous and hard to take back.

Is that where you set out to be when you picked up that weapon and put it in your pocket?

Gil Scott-Heron - Gun (from Arista LP 'Reflections') 1981

I've Been Put Out, Shut Out, And Told To Stay Out, And Then Talked About, But I've Still Got You: Joe Tex For The Hall Of Fame!

"This is what rock and roll is all about," Rock And Roll Hall of Fame President Joel Peresman said to the coterie of music executives who had hung around after the ceremonies, eagerly hanging on to his every word. "Who would believe that Van Halen would have to wait so long for their just reward. But lucky for them, I'm in charge now. I spent a lot of good money on hairspray, skipped class to follow their tours, and learnt three whole power chords so I could play their tunes on my 'axe' in my bedroom. Such devotion! But now the whole world understands..."

Bidding his friends farewell, Mr Peresman gave final orders to security to dispose of Iggy and The Stooges. Picking up another sparkling flute of champagne, he trotted, giddily, up the steps and onto the now empty stage. It had been a good night...

... a cold draft blew threw the room. Joel span around, suddenly convinced that he was not alone. But there was nothing there, of course. How silly of me, he thought, nobody noticed. How could they possibly know what we have done? They worship who we say they should worship...

This time, he was spun around with such force he snapped the stem of the flute between his fingers. Yet the strength moving him was not his own.

I Gotcha!

"No!"

You Thought I Didn't See Ya Now, Didn't Ya?

"It's not possible..."

You Thought You'd Sneak By Me Now, Didn't Ya?

"This can't be happening..."

Uh huh, Huh!

"But they told me you only made that disco hit where you ain't gonna bump no more with no big fat woman..."

Uh huh, Huh!

"Please, I didn't know..."

Now Give Me What You Promised Me, Give It Here, Come On!

There was a scream, then the sound of broken glass. Then there was just the sound of running footsteps, an empty awards room, stale champagne, and a pile of gaudy trinkets...




The decision to omit Joe Tex from the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame this year astonishes me! How can Van Halen have a better claim, especially in a list of candidates that also included The Stooges as a far more credible 'rock' act? I blame MTV... Yet it continues to be the case that soul artists such as Joe Tex are all but invisible to the public at large, and their contributions to music totally ignored. Even those artists who do rise above into the collective consciousness are incompletely understood. One British tabloid (the formerly proud, campaigning, working-class Mirror) recently described the funeral of Mr James Brown and the public procession to view the casket as 'bizarre' and 'ghoulish' and 'grotesque'. Such commentators are in the most extreme form of denial about the origins of their popular music, yet seemingly revel in their ignorance.

The blogosphere is not immune to such frippery either. The same day as the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame announcement, one blog admirably featured Joe Tex and several admirable samples of his work, yet spared no expense to mock his comedic lyrical style, and even to denigrate his religion by mocking his name (termed 'El Reg Dwight' for some bizarre reason) and with numerous references to eating pork scratchings. Yusuf Hazziez deserves better than this.


Joe's music is much deeper that the comedy on the surface suggests. There is a serious aspect to many of his songs. The comedy comes from his keen powers of observation. Peter Guralnick puts into context the comedic aspects of Joe Tex's act in Sweet Soul Music:


"Perhaps humor was as good a way to handle the indignities of the road as any other... Removed by twenty [now forty] years, it is not always easy to remember just how grim those days really were ... Ballparks and taxicabs are segregated ...a book about black rabbits and white rabbits was banned... A drive is on to forbid 'Negro music' on 'white' radio stations... In the face of such opposition is it any wonder that many blacks should have fallen back on 'mother wit' as their first line of defence?..."

Joseph Arrington's conversion to Islam was also far from a flippant act. Many white people in the industry saw it as a sign of black activism, and thus a challenge to the established racial order of the day. In fact, it was a deeply personal search for spiritual answers, by a man who was not at all beholden to the allures of fame, and gave up his career to focus on his family and ministry. Now, of course, Joe's religion brings up other latent fears within some. How ironic that they would use comedy to protect themselves from it...

Today's song, from Joe's Dial recordings, shows the character of a man who had experienced ignorance and bigotry aplenty, yet was able to maintain his own sense of dignity and retain focus on the things close to him that meant something more...

Baby, if you be good, if you be good,
If you be good, baby, if you be good,
Listen!
I'll give you all the love and care that your heart desires
Yes I will...

Listen!
I've been lied on, stepped on, walked on, cheated on baby,
I've still got you.
I've been run down, knocked down , turned around and slapped down, baby
I still got you.

Listen!
A man would have to be crazy, to leave a good woman like you.
Coz you have got that certain little something,
That makes me forget all that I've been through...

I've been put out shut out, and told to stay out, and then talked about,
But I've still got you.
I've been beat up, cut up, shot up and told to shut up.
I still got you.

Listen again!
A man whould have to be crazy,
to leave a good woman like you,
Coz you have got that certain little something,
that makes me forget all that I've been through.

Joe Tex - Baby, Be Good (Dial 4086) 1968

Somewhere, I imagine, people who know, amongst them Buddy, Ahmet, and even James, are giving Joe a toast befitting to his contribution, and that's enough for him perhaps. And even down here, it isn't the end of the story. On October 26th 2006, someone named Phile wrote a comment in a blog elsewhere that read: "Where has Joe Tex been all my life?"

The details of the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame inductees 2007 can be found here. To campaign for Joe Tex's inclusion in The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame for 2008, write to:

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York,

NY 10104

Or leave comments for this post, to form a petition!

Is Everything They Say About Soul Wrong?

I recently read an interesting article by Martin Skidmore, at the website FreakyTrigger. The title was "Everything They Say About Soul Is Wrong: Emotion vs Technique In Soul Music And Its Criticism." The thrust of the argument is a challenging one for all of us who appreciate soul music.

"I am deeply suspicious of the way its fans talk about it. This has seeped into the wider discourse too - the emotional angle is by no means restricted to the devotees, experts and critics."

Essentially, the writer questions the way in which we see the concept of 'soul music'. Do we turn it into something it isn't?

"[Are] we are talking about heartfelt emotions, raw passion, a sincerity of feeling, expressed from the heart in natural ways. I am very doubtful, though, that this has anything to do with soul music and what makes it so wonderful..."

Do I confuse the singer on the stage with the character of the song, and come to believe that I am witnessing real emotion when somebody sings?

"...We aren’t hearing the real emotions of the performers - no one has three minutes of heartbreak, then three of anger at betrayal, then three of having a party, then three of being deeply in love…"

I think that is a little bit too reductionist. Everybody should be able to recognise that they are being entertained, not necessarily receiving a confession. But it would hardly be emotionally satisfying for the audience if the performer didn't have the ability to make us feel the emotion held within the song itself. I tend to think that soul fans are perhaps less not more likely to confuse the singer with the song than people who perhaps enjoy indie music, where the concept of the 'singer-songwriter' puts a much greater emphasis on the illusion that we are listening to the self-written personal thoughts of the artist as a visionary poet.

Martin did have an interesting anectdote to counter my certainty, taken from the Yahoo Southern Soul Group:

"I particularly remember their reactions to a new published interview with Sam Moore of Sam & Dave. He expressed a liking for various people, by no means all soul types or ‘credible’ artists. Elton John was the name that agitated them most - they were trying to make excuses, looking for a hidden agenda, wondering if there was talk of Elton writing a song for him or working with him. They couldn’t believe that a soul giant could really like Elton’s music, which is surely the obvious and completely plausible explanation..."

This behaviour I recognise, and I agree it should be discouraged. It is quite common for those who find out about soul music of the era for the first time to treat it reverentially, like an exclusive club to which only the true member may join - to the extreme of guarding it from perceived 'outside' influences (even against poor Reggie Dwight, who played piano with Major Lance, Doris Troy, the Bluebells and dozens more r&b acts who toured the UK in the 60s. Go and find a record by Long John Baldry & Bluesology to get an idea of that...). Yet we don't make the music - how can we say what it should be? Get out there and make some music yourself, then you can make it what you want it to be! Fortunately, it is an attitude that people grow out of with time and experience.


Soul Men: Sam & Reggie. Why not! I suggest Don't Go Breaking My Heart, in a real slow, relaxed tempo, country soul ballad in style. There, I said it, I won't take it back, and you can't make me!

Do people focus so much on the emotional impact of the music that they do not give the professional skill and the talent of the performers and musicians enough credit? Martin does have one more warning to give us to ponder, likening the way he has observed others discuss soul music as akin to the way people describe African footballers:

"The talk is of passion and raw emotion, an innate access to feeling, and not of intelligence and musical technique... It doesn’t take a vast amount of insight to spot the racism in all of this..."

Certainly, it is undeniable that I love the way the music feels. Sometimes, when I personally write about the music, I describe the sensations when a certain moment in the music kicks in. But I'm not sure that that in itself is inappropriate. After all, the feeling we get is why we listen to music in the first place. And it is one of the very real motivations behind the making of all kinds of popular music. Soul music, like all others, was and is a business. But if you were going to make a living from it, you had to get good at listening out for the things that appealed to your audience, and you had to practice and work hard at perfecting your delivery and routine to make people turn out and pay for a ticket, and to get booked at the next town along on the road. In a sense, describing the emotional impact of music is a way of celebrating the effort and honing of the performers' art, using layman's terms that we can all relate to. I do think that there should be more effort put in to documenting and describing the technical elements that go into producing soul music. I for one know that I simply do not possess the knowledge and musical ability to do so. But I can appreciate a good professional performance and a well-crafted song.

Martin takes as an example Al Green's cover version of the Bee Gees song How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?, and describes with eloquence the techniques the Rev. Green uses to 'inject' a sense of emotion into the song:

"This isn’t the natural outpouring of romantic pain; it’s not even method acting, where he deliberately feels it and so expresses it; this is the work of a powerful musical intelligence, who has carefully thought about every moment of the song, every word, every sound, and has calculated how to make it work with maximum effect."

Every word of this is correct, and well said. However, I have to wonder, in getting up to go to work each day at the Royal Studio, and picking out songs to record, surely somebody was thinking in some small way,"Hey, I like this song, it kind of reminds me of when ..." I started to think: has Martin in some way created a straw man to knock down when he defines the emotional content thus:

"I don’t believe that all he [Al Green] is doing is expressing how he feels, if he is doing that at all; he is finding ways to express what this lyric and song feels like, he is putting those emotions into the song, irrespective of how he might have personally felt at the time it was recorded."

The distinction Martin makes is that between the true emotions of the musicians, and the emotional effect that they imbue the song with. While at first I was sure this was obvious to all, I wonder if it is so obvious, when people come to listen with their own mind-sets and prejudgements. A lot of people like hearing the Supremes come on at a family disco; not all of them are going to be paragons of virtue. I start to see where soul fans can go wrong in assuming that the music in itself will neccessarily change people's attitudes.

"I just think the gap between the way people talk about music and the way it’s actually made is greater in soul music than any other, and I think the musical skill and intelligence on show in its many great recordings are therefore persistently undervalued, or even not noted at all."

I know that in general, soul fans are always eager to sit and listen to stories of the people who made the music, without the more ghoulish aspects of our modern-day paparazzi-style veneration of celebrities. While the emphasis in pop and rock culture is to read about the after-show parties, and drink and drug binges, it is quite other with soul. We spend countless hours pondering just exactly how the 'Stax sound' was created, trying to find out just what is a 'head arrangement', and tracing all of the doings of those fabulous rhythm sections from all over who created such music. Martin gives an excellent praisie of the personnel and methods of Willie Mitchell at the Royal Studio as an example of the knowledge and work that went into creating music that sounds as if Al Green is talking to your girlfriend and persuading her to Stay Together right in the room with you. It is a perfect example well-chosen. I would counter that I have yet to meet a dedicated soul fan who would not want to eagerly devour such knowledge and take the message fully on board. But Martin is right that we would be naive to assume that everybody gets it, and that we are often therefore, naive in how we describe soul.

I think that the interest people have in learning about the whole person and about their lives apart from the music, and the numerous accounts I have read of the genuine friendships between performers and soul researchers, reunions, help given to those who have experienced hard times, express a greater appreciation of the real human beings, flaws and all, who make the music we love. Read Martin Skidmore's article for yourself, and hopefully it will remind you, if you ever forgot.

Read Martin Skidmore's article "Everything We Say About Soul Is Wrong".

I have edited my post after considering some more the thoughts in Martin Skidmore's essay. It reminded me of some of the themes of soul music that this blog is supposed to be commenting upon.

"Will You Turn Your Back On Me?"

The anniversary of the impact of Hurricane Katrina upon southern Mississippi and Louisiana saw the arrival of President George W Bush at a commemoration ceremony. When the hurricane struck, the President did not visit the disaster area until two weeks later. In that period of time, thousands of citizens in New Orleans, predominantly black, were left stranded inside the city, unable to access routes of evacuation, some led by the authorities to huddle in the inadequate facilities of the Superdome, others faced by the presence of National Guard and Federal troops given orders to shoot to kill any person seen looting, whether this was to secure food and water for their families or not.

As usual, the undeniable existence of failures at every level of government, at city, state, and federal level, ensured that nobody else would be required to be held accountable, once the head of FEMA had been fired for failing to enact plans that he had been ordered not to enact.

More disturbingly, the survivors of the disaster have come under growing criticism in the national press, from those who wish to paint the tragedy as almost a divine punishment for the the criminal, the poor, the welfare-dependent, the poorly educated, (the black?) inhabitants of the city of New Orleans. Particulary in the city of Houston, eager to portray itself as a 'good samaritan' in the early days of the crisis, it has become politically expedient to highlight the social problems which have travelled to Houston with the evacuees. Increases in general crime, and gun-related crime in particular; the re-establishment of gang groupings in Houston suburbs; an increase in welfare bills in the city; statistics that show the lower academic achievement of child evacuees; a squeeze on the availability of rented housing for native Houstonians.

Could these allegations be true? Almost certainly, every one. But, we should ask, what did you expect? New Orleans is not unique amongst American cities in having exacerbated the problems faced by its population, and in having limited the opportunities of some due to the colour of their skin. We all know that. Let the situation alone for long enough, fail to do enough to address the social disparities for a few generations, and any group of people will turn towards alternative paths to make it through, however self-destructive those paths may become. It is incredible to me, how some conservative thinkers, such as Ed Lasky at The American Thinker and Nicole Gelinas at The City Journal, truly believe that, as long as you stop actually treading on peoples' necks, they will spontaneously transform into new contented members of the middle-class, and behave themselves. And all with lower taxes! Of course, you will need to let the police be a little tougher, to keep folks concentrating...

It takes people, facilities, education, employment, security, and stability to rebuild peoples' lives. It is not easy, it is not cheap, it is slow. It cannot be accomplished solely by developing a robust policing strategy alone. That helps to reduce the insecurity of crime and gangs, then you have to build alternatives to eliminate those issues.

It has been one year. For some, though by no means the majority, that is just too long at playing the 'friendly neighbour'. I can understand their point of view, when you take into account the appalling lack of progress achieved by those responsible for reconstructing the city of New Orleans and other affected areas. Why is reconstruction in areas such as the Ninth Ward still not underway? Until there is adequate housing and comprehensive facilities in such districts, the evacuees cannot return home. Some economic conservatives point out that it is vital to first regenerate the economy of the city in order to provide the stability the residents need. A misunderstanding of the concept of a city economy. The income from a few thousand seasonal tourists will not be enough to kick-start the services of hundreds of thousands of residents. You will have to accept that people need to return soon; that housing will have to be built and paid for by the authorities; that those people will be not have jobs or regular incomes; that they will again have to be supported by the authorities; that businesses will have to be kick-started with funds from the authorities, independently of anything achieved by banks and corporations which need to consider risk and cannot simply throw their money around. Yes, the government of the United States will have to throw some money around in New Orleans, employ New Orleans people directly. Pay construction companies to build, pay residents to build them, buy the houses, and this time think a little about quality of housing stock and affordability. Pay people to set up local businesses, shops and stores, as well as pay for the city's vital employees.

But of course, none of this will happen. Clearing up will be sorted out by federal and state troops and engineers eventually. The city will take on the costs of essential social services, and will have to fight for decades with the state and federal government for extra funds and loans to support a quickly-reestablished debt. "Oh, you should have cut back and economised on services!", the conservatives will admonish. Reconstruction will happen via the private sector, as and when a business from outside of New Orleans deems it is profitable to do so. The tourist districts will regeneration fastest, others will remain under-resourced, as banks balk at underwriting stores in poorer districts where the people are angry and are relying on welfare to pay for essentials. "You can't beat the market. Did you want to go back to the New Deal?", conservatives will warn. Construction firms, perhaps those Halliburton chaps, will build housing to their own specifications. They will claim land for little or no cost wherever land goes unclaimed, and compulsory purchase orders will be made against stubborn landowners who cannot raise sufficient funds to rebuild. Some will be sold at prices to recoup costs, plus a healthy profit, as is the natural way. Other housing will be crammed in and leased or managed privately for the city. Obviously, somebody has spent the last year creating a balanced and positive plan for these new improved residential districts. Haven't they? "It's what they're used too", people will say. Welfare is a cost that needs to be controlled, let alone the insidious affect it can have on a person's moral and self-motivation. Other social spending, such as education and training, is quite costly too, and is therefore quite rightly a local matter. It will be next year, or maybe the next, when the city has adequate funding to pay for those textbooks the community teachers asked for, and there is a great plan to replace the portacabin classroom within ten years. In the meantime, there is alway the charity and ingenuity of churches, and all those great folks down there, in the new New Orleans, where we don't live.

This post reads like an angry rant, yet the purpose was more to highlight just how much and how long it will take to truly, not just restore, but transform the city into a better New Orleans for its people. Can the American people be galvanised to take on a task that will take a decade of their attention and resources? They did during the Depression, but the methods are anathema to the American heartland, and after all, this is just one city. Some conservatives come up with intelligent and urgently-needed schemes (see this July article from the New York Post), particularly in the area of law-enforcement, but simply cannot help but link them to a few digs at the people charged with implementing them: "New Orleans was a mess before the hurricane; and you'll only fuck it up again," seems to be the attitude. I'd love to believe that these people care about the people who will live in the city, but it sounds more like the preparatory argument for pulling out and leaving them to sink or swim. For after the 'tough on law and order' apporach gets tough, ie takes longer than a month to solve all society's ills, conservatives rapidly lose interest in the social and educational programmes that should have been implemented alongside, and that make it easier for law-enforcement to establish security. The reality has impacted on the lives of the people of Houston, and they see the enormity of the task ahead, but the crisis is far away for the rest of us.

A waitress demanded of the President, "Will you turn your back on me again?" He replied, "No, ma'am, not again." He will be gone from office long before he has to stand by his vow. I guess he must be speaking for all of us.

Jack Montgomery - Don't Turn You're Back On Me (Barracuda)

Available on the CD "The Essential Detroit Soul Collection" (Goldmine/Soul Supply)





POSTSCRIPT: I like to peruse the City Journal archives for funny stuff, especially Theodore Dalrymple, who has become sort of "America's Correspondent From Sinister Londonistan". I just found another article by Nicole Gelinas, where she at first seems to suggest that the Federal Government take on the burden of buying out and rebuilding the homes of New Orleans, thus keeping the money away from those corrupt officals of the state and city, and letting the sturdy folk of New Orleans help themselves. How magnanimous and far-sighted, I thought. But then I read on. She actually believes that, in the best traditions of 'self-help', the people of New Orleans will have their moral fibre as well as their homes restored if the government merely pays for 60% of the costs of rebuilding your home, while the homeowner themselves finds the other 40%, or sell out their land to redevelopment companies and pay back the mortgage lender. I provide a brief quote to illustrate the difficult dilemmas that today's conservative must contend with:

"...Senator Baker’s original bill seemed to suggest that lenders would be paid off in full; the 60-percent provision is the Congressman’s reasonable response to criticism that such a bailout of banks that loaned billions to people who invested in property below sea level would create an intolerable moral hazard. Skeptics might ask: Even at the 60 percent rate, wouldn’t the LRC still create a massive moral hazard by retroactively indemnifying homeowners and lenders for the risk of investing in a flood-prone area without adequate insurance?..."

Well, quite. Of course, choosing to live in New Orleans is immorality itself. We must save the people by taking away 40% of their life savings too...

Toto, we're not in Topeka anymore...

I read recently about events in the school board of Omaha, Nebraska. It has been proposed that the public school system in the city be divided into three geographical zones. However, as is the nature of most American cities, this zoning just happens to correspond broadly with the black, hispanic and white concentrations of the school-age population. While the stated intention is to deal with inequality for African-American schoolchildren by creating what in Britain is called an 'education action zone', this version seems to neglect the fact that funding for public schools in the USA comes primarily from the district itself. Remove the wealthier white districts from the taxable base for northern Omaha City, and lose the biggest slice of funding for those who most need it. Even on an educational level, the proposal seems flawed, since unlike in UK models, where it is easier to find a mixture of communities and schools in a fairly compact area, I cannot see how the important partnerships between 'successful' and struggling schools will occur, when geography and a divided education authority are acting as barriers. Already, it is admitted that the simple act of busing of students has long since been abandoned. So, if other public schools will have no incentive to assist each other, the shortfall in funding is going to have to come from the commercial sector, unless the black and hispanic communities can muster the talents and resources from within themselves. And if they can do that, and I believe they can, why did local politicians not support them long ago, rather than wait to support zoning changes?...

It is interesting to see that the chief proponent of this change is Senator Ernie Chambers, an African-American who has a long distinguished career serving his community, a voice of the dispossesed and discounted. "There is no intent to create segregation," says Sen. Chambers. He has long criticised the lack of resources for the northern part of town. He hopes for more local control of what happens there. He may have walked right into a trap white conservatives might never have dreamed was possible. Or, perhaps not. Sen. Chambers is known as "The Defender of the Downtrodden", and has a penchant for plain speaking as he unapologetically fights for his corner of the city. He decries 'color-blind' politics that really mask the inequalities around us, and would rather say things out loud if it will help get things done. So, to find out more about Ernie Chambers go to his page at the Nebraska State Legislature, and also read this fascinating and entertaining interview with "The Maverick of Omaha" at MotherJones.com, where he sets out why children's education shouldn't be left in the hands of the cosy "Repelicans and Demagogues".

Today's recording is linked to this theme, and is taken from the recording of a speech given by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr at the Detroit Freedom Rally on June 23rd 1963. In this segment of his speech, he discusses what African-Americans can do about segregation in the South, in which he reminds them, of course, about the ever-present ...

Segregation In The North - Rev. Martin Luther King Jr (Gordy Records G906 1963)

Incidentally, I remember that my local record dealer had found this record on a trip to Arizona, and was sorry to part with it. I've played it many a time to students in history lessons, so it is still playing its part in the freedom struggle!

Roosevelt Grier: A Man And A Half

Roosevelt Grier's classic single, Pizza Pie Man, is a slice of darkly humourous social commentary on relationships. It was released on D-Town Records in 1966.

The man behind the song has one of the most remarkable lifestories of any soul singer. He was a celebrated american football star in the late 50s and early 60s, playing as a fair-minded tackler for the New York Giants and the LA Rams as part of the Fearsome Foursome. Even while he was playing, he had ventured into music, starting in 1959 with 'Sincerley', He was moderately successful, but came to the attention of Bobby Darin, who produced and co-wrote songs for an album titled Soul City in 1964. Darin had first heard him sing on a jingle for Falstaff Beer. Darin said, "I knew right away that I wanted to record him, the only question was -how? However, Darin started to sense a deeper, more political side to Roosevelt that he had not at first suspected: "... The only time his eyes lit up with all-out enthusiasm was on 'message' songs ... vital, citified expressions of longing and need."

Rosey also embarked on an acting career in 1964 that saw him feature in over 80 television shows, including Daniel Boone, and Roots: The Next Generation.


But most significantly, it was in 1968 that he offered his services as a bodyguard to his friend, Senator Robert Kennedy. At the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, on June 5th 1968, the assassin Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy. It was Roosevelt Grier and Rafer Johnson, Olympic gold medal-winner, who tackled Sirhan to the ground. Alas, it was too late to save the Senator some believed would have taken a more radical stance on issues of race in the USA. This sense of hope lost should be tempered by the Kennedy's decidedly lukewarm approach towards civil rights legislation and towards the movement generally under Jack's presidency, and their hesitancy to use the muscle of the federal government towards such aims.

What is undeniable is that it was the personal, selfless heroism of Roosevelt Grier which almost gave America the chance to find out.

Pizza Pie Man is available on the Soul Sampler Vol 1 CD at http://www.goldsoul.co.uk/shop/north-soul/cd/gscds.html. Buy it and you won't regret it!

Today, Grier is a practising Christian minister, has been a patron of the Special Olympics and works with an LA faith-based charity called World Impact. He has also been associated with the American Neighborhood Enterprises scheme, which works with inner-city communities to offer help with housing and vocational training schemes. It is his recent activism that has brough Grier in for some criticism from those who see his projects as ostensibly following the 'self-help' doctrines of Booker T Washington, and thus implicitly accepting the racial stereotyping of African-Americans as 'lazy' and 'feckless'. Read Deborah Toler's article for PublicEye.com titled 'Black Conservatives', which expands on this opinion, and cites other more controversial black American figures as perhaps justifiable targets. However, for local, grassroots activists of long-standing such as Grier, it does seem a little harsh to portray him as some kind of deluded tar-baby, betraying black identity. It feels like an attack on your father because you wish he was the myth you grew up believing in, and its easier than fighting the real enemies, who are just too powerful and in a sense have already won...

POSTSCRIPT 19.4.07: Browsing other things, I came across an article by Avery Tooley at Stereo Describes My Scenario, where he descusses the conflicting responses he feels towards the message of Black Conservative politicians. Click here to read it.

(much of this information comes from articles by Sandra Brennan and Andrew Hamilton, both accessible at http://www.answers.com/topic/rosey-grier , and the Bobby Darin fansite at http://www.bobbydarin.net/soulcity.html)