I always start a history book with high hopes despite the inviolable truth that one should set expectations to their lowest level so as to avoid being disappointed. True to form, “Louisiana A History” does not fail to disappoint.
On the positive side, the editor’s Introduction was very good and raised my expectations tremendously, as did Part 1 covering the pre-historic to the end of the colonial period (about 1803.) “Placage” in particular is a fascinating practice I’d not encountered before, along with quadroon balls, and I wonder about modern revivals of these venerable traditions. In any case, I would suggest that more extensive footnotes (to every paragraph, for example) would be a significant improvement.
However, the rest of the text (Parts 2,3,&4), with a few exceptions, utterly dashed my hopes.
If I were to boil down most of my criticisms, I would draw attention to the sloppy and lazy editorial “oversight”. Two photographic examples: Pages 370 and 422 show the exact same photographs (an offshore oil rig), yet the photo captions are quite different and one of them clearly wrong. Similarly, p. 242 shows a “one-room schoolhouse” (presumably 1930s) which looks suspiciously like the McMansion my new neighbor just built across the street from me. Any idiot can see it’s not what the caption says it is.
These kinds of easy-to-spot and easy-to-fix errors really bother me, suggesting as they do that buried and not-so-easy-to-spot errors (or even merely missed opportunities) abound throughout the text, as they in fact do.
One of my continuing criticisms of state history textbooks is the authors’ apparently willful ignorance of how capitalism works, of money and banking generally, of the role of government spending and taxes, the misuse of statistics, among other failings, and this textbook follows that same pattern. The authors’ biases about various historical controversies are rarely hard to discern, which, to me, does not make for good history. Is there any New Deal program that the authors don’t like? Is there any tax increase or government spending increase that they don’t approve of (unless because it’s insufficient in their opinions). Are they aware of the arguments against the “New Deal”—many validated by subsequent historical research and analysis—and how some of those programs, including actions taken by the Federal Reserve, prolonged the Depression?
If not, they have no business writing “history.”
There are a few points in the text when one gets glimpses of suggestions that the authors are vaguely aware of some anomalies. My favorite may be on p.471, when the author points out that Louisiana had a budget larger than that of Pennsylvania with less than half the population! Yet in the next sentence, you get the impression that Bobby Jindal’s “severe budget cuts” are almost a crime against humanity! And in the Department of Missed Opportunities, where is the analysis of such tantalizing topics as: how much employment in the state is for government at all levels (versus, say, industry or agriculture) and how has that changed over time? What is the breakdown of government revenues, and more importantly, expenditures, per capita, and how has that changed? How many people does the state employ at what cost and how has that grown? Do LA taxpayers pay more to the Federal government than they get back in spending? Should they? What is the overall tax burden and who pays it? How does that compare to other states? And for whatever pay raises Louisiana teachers have gotten, has there been ANY improvement in student outcomes? (Follow-up question: Which politicians get the most financial support from teachers’ and other unions?)
Here’s my favorite Missed Opportunity : P448, the first two paragraphs under “Social, Cultural, and Economic Trends, 1995-2001” recount at some length many of the ways in which LA is still falling behind the rest of the South. I wrote in the margin (sarcasm intended), “Wonder why?” Happily, the next paragraph provides the answer. “Kentwood native Britney Spears became one of the nation’s leading rock singers.”
I never thought much of her music either…
And, yes, I blame the editor.