[I visited San Antonio on November 17, this entry is just catching up.]

I had trouble finding anyone who'd say anything bad about San Antonio. They'd say bad things about Houston or Dallas or Hobbs, NM, but not about S.A. And to a fairly good extent that's justified. It's a bit sleepy, and it's basically a small town surrounded by a humungous suburban ring and some Army and Air Force bases. However, it has its own charms and attractions. The city of S.A. actually has more people than the City of Dallas, however, the DFW googleplex is probably a few times larger, and it's definitely a lot busier.

S.A. has the River Walk, which is quite attractive, however, the part of the River Walk where all the stuff is unfortunately just a series of restaurants and bars. There aren't, for instance, book stores, or museums, or other free types of things. They haven't built a Wal*Mart down by the river yet, but it would be nice to have non-commercial areas. Despite all that, the River Walk is definitely worth seeing.

San Antonio is a Hispanic-majority city: 55% Hispanic, 35% white, 7% black. It's had that same proportions for a few decades; apparently there wasn't a white flight as in, say, Los Angeles. There doesn't appear to be the same degree of racial conflict as there is in Los Angeles either. I made a few attempts to compare and contrast the two cities by questioning a few people.

My comparing and contrasting invoked the ire of a worker at the Institute of Texan Cultures, which operates a museum showcasing each of the cultures who established Texas. He accused me of observer bias, finding conflicts because I'm expecting to find them. Well, no, it's just that I've lived in Los Angeles for many years. He attempted to leave me with a parting zinger. Unfortunately, the zinger ain't got no zing because I've forgotten what he said and I couldn't figure out what he was getting at when he said it.

According to the Institute's brochure, "[o]perating on the premise that people are stronger citizens when they know more about themselves and each other, the Institute provides a forum for understanding culture and history and symbolizes the state's strength in diversity." Despite that, the Museum isn't as bad as it sounds. But, perhaps that's not so much a matter of desire as the fact that they aren't competent enough to pull off the full Tranzi PC treatment. However, it doesn't appear there's a concerted State effort to make people get along. In L.A., one can imagine all the State propaganda which there is and will be to get people to stop shooting each other. But, apparently, that's not that necessary in S.A., although I didn't go into schools or government buildings to check that out.

In any case, the museum is a bit long in the tooth, as it was first created for the 1968 World's Fair. It isn't such a great place to see unless you're a decendent of one of the residents of Texas. The World's Fair was held in the HemisFair Plaza which is home not only to the Institute but to the Tower of the Americas. That rises 750' above the flatlands. The ribs of the tower look a bit like those on the Devil's Tower in Wyoming. Unfortunately, I would have had to pay $4 and, to add insult to injury, I couldn't take the stairs up, I had to take the elevator. I decided against it. If I'd waited until the next Saturday, I could have taken part in a race to the top during which you were allowed to use the stairs, but that was still a few days away.

The museum's only obviously objectionable exhibit was an oferta to people who had died from domestic violence. Needless to say, all the victims were women, and the perpetrators were men. There were several books there with anti-male titles. It had, however, been relegated to the basement.

In a few brief spins around S.A., I didn't see too many things reminiscent of the situation in L.A. For instance, in L.A. one can see wall murals saying things like "Who's the minority now?" Maybe there are things like that in S.A., but I didn't see them. People seem to get along. Rather than having surly, unassimilatable new "immigrants" and angry older immigrants, most of the residents have been there a while, and Tejanos fought alongside "Anglos" at the Alamo. According to a film at the Alamo's museum, Chicanos have held protests there. However, I was told I'd have to wait a long time for the next protest. According to a couple people, Mecha-style sentiments don't go over too well here; not too many people in S.A. want to be part of Mexico. I don't think Cruz Bustamante, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Gil Cedillo would be quite as popular there as they are in California. However, San Antonio does have its own version, state Senator Leticia Van de Putte.

One bit problem with S.A. is there don't appear to be too many small funky neighborhoods like you find in Chicago or L.A. Even Dallas has more distinct neighborhoods near the central core. The southside of S.A. is largely Hispanic, and the other areas are less so. Unlike L.A., there appear to be many middle class Hispanics in the suburbs. The suburbs are full of the standard assortment of fast food restaurants and big box stores; one can drive around the 410 loop and spot a Wal*Mart every few miles. However, my impression of S.A. as a small central core surrounded by featureless suburbs and military bases might be because the visitor center didn't have a good map.

I visited a few of the missions: Concepcion, San Jose, and San Juan. As in most of the rest of Texas, the people at the tourist information bureau were basically map distributors. They were helpful, but they really didn't know that much. The older guy with the white beard at the tourist booth in Ellsworth Maine was a former CSULA geography professor. He not only was on the same wavelength as I, he had traveled around Maine, and he knew what was going on. Many of the people who work at tourist booths in Texas and elsewhere are a) incapable of having their receivers even approach my wavelength, and b) don't exactly seem like inveterate explorers who want to find out what's around the next bend. Most of them aren't exactly the enquiring type. So, like I said, the ladies at the tourist booth wanted to help, but couldn't. They didn't even have a detailed street map, like I'd received in Dallas or Austin (the Dallas street map requires three hands to hold). The fact that I only had a detailed map of the downtown area and a large scale, one page map covering a twenty mile area worked against my attempts to find specific neighborhoods of interest.

S.A. is a little more rolling than Austin, and I even saw a 50', gently sloped bluff. In L.A., of course, one can see bluffs several times that, and areas like Mount Washington or the Hollywood Hills rising hundreds of feet from the surrounding areas. There are no big mountains, or even moderate hills anywhere near S.A.

I stopped in at the San Antonio River Authority, and tried to get information on any studies comparing our river with theirs, but the guy who does that was out to lunch. The south end of the river, down where the missions are, looks a bit more like the L.A. River, minus our river's omnipresent graffitti and garbage. I saw a few people at the Espada Dam picking up what small amount of trash there was. As in L.A., they hold a river cleanup each year, but I'd imagine that they take away a lot less than is taken away in L.A. Understandably, S.A. residents are more concerned about their river than Angelenos, some of whom don't even know there's an L.A. River or may never have seen it.

I saw several pretty, upper scale Tejanas, and despite the flatness of the area, I think this area deserves a deep, penetrating analysis, like the one I failed to do in Maine.