Pierre Part and Belle River rest in an area once known as the Atchafalaya Basin. Between 1770 and 1773; a young Canadian named Pierre Part set foot on the banks of what he called La Bay de Lac Verret. He was with the Spanish colonial militia under the command of Commandant Nicholas Verret Sr.; a French Canadian. Part considered this place a beautiful wilderness and asked his superior for permission to establish a settlement�his request was not granted. The military returned Part to the Spanish military post at Valenzuela; and although he never made this area his home; his name remains. Other French explorers came much earlier than Part; and some of the area�s waterways bear French names: Le Belle Rivere; Le Lac de Natchez; Bayou de Magazille; Bayou de Lantania (Palmetto); Bayou de Postillion; Le Lac de Palourde; and Le Bayou Milhomme. In 1780; Acadian French�speaking people moved to Pierre Part from Burlie des Olivers and Burlie Saint Vincent. Small groups came and settled together at various places within sight of each other. In 1803; a small settlement of families; which is believed to have included the Solors and Berthelots and later the Heberts and the Pipsairs; settled on the banks of Lake Verret; where Bayou Pierre Part flows into the lake.
#1920237 in eBooks 2015-05-25 2015-05-25File Name: B00YO2WWA6
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. So when Miller occasionally puts on his critics hat and deploys anachronistic ideas like "white skin privilege" when talking aboBy J.F. QuackenbushThis is a very interesting re-examination of the cultural milieu in which southern music came to be marketed by the incipient record industry and the way that Jim Crow shaped both cultural expectations of audiences and musicians. It also takes to task the expectations and assumptions of early folklorists whose classist; racist search for "authenticity" led them to distort the world and humanity of the subjects of their research. Miller is careful to portray the complexity of the subject matter. Throughout; miller paints a careful and moderate picture of southern musical culture from 1880 to around 1920. He notes the ambivalent nature of a culture where Afro American composers of coon songs can use white racist stereotypes of black former slaves to lift themselves and while the folklorists seeking to preserve "authentic" primitive culture lament that the world they assume exists has been "contaminated" by the outside world.Of particular value is Millers original research tracing the historiography of the oral historians themselves who have preserved so much of the history of the south that might otherwise be lost to us. While noting the invaluable nature of this work; Miller also points out some aspects of it that ought to give us pause as various commentators seek to push into territories guided by their own ideological biases and presumptions; which leave them blind to what they are actually being told by their informants. A clear; and revelatory; example of this is found in the interaction of John Lomax and Roosevelt Sykes where Lomax is pressing for information about anti-white or anti-Jim Crow lyrics; but Sykes cagily dissembles insisting that nobody sings those types of songs. While it should be clear to any reader; and may even have been clear to Lomax on reflection; that Sykess reticence is out of fear for his own safety in the face of this white man who could do him real harm; it also illustrates how little Lomax understood his informant at the time and therefore illuminates why we should have pause in taking the work of early folklorists and anthropologists at face value; despite the pricelessness of the work they did.Which leads me to my only real criticism of the book. Where Miller is astute and adept in calling into question the paradigms and framings of early generations of folklorists and anthropologists; he is less perspicacious where it comes to the theories currently operatant in his own academic culture. Throughout the book; Miller regularly uses modern theories of race relations to analyze source material in a manner that; while perhaps legitimate is still left entirely unjustified. So when Miller occasionally puts on his critics hat and deploys anachronistic ideas like "white skin privilege" when talking about white bluesman Frank Hutchison or addresses Jim Crow in terms of "white supremacy;" the modern reader follows and understands his point. But given this is all done within a book challenging such racial paradigms of a previous era; there seems to inevitably be a bit of cognitive dissonance present that more careful unpacking of such language might have avoided.Im also not a fan of the election to use endnotes rather than footnotes or chapter endnotes. This is an editorial style that makes close reading more awkward than it needs to be and is regrettable; although only a minor inconvenience.All in all; I highly recommend the book to anyone interested of the history of popular music in the United States. There is startling and fascinating material here that one would have to be a profession scholar to find on your own that I have not seen reproduced elsewhere and that alone recommends it. Millers excellent historiography; agree with his conclusions or not; is thought provoking and well reasoned and his thesis is well worth considering.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Customerall good.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. If you enjoy misinformation...By Joseph ScottKarl Hagstrom Millers _Segregating Sound_ contains some remarkable misinformation."Academic collectors were particularly slow to associate the blues with folklore." Sounds interesting; but it happens to be flatly false. John Lomax included the song "The Blues" in a list of "genuine Negro folk-songs" in print in 1912; and characterized blues songs as folk songs in his 1917 article in _The Nation_. Howard Odum published blues; such as "Frisco Rag-Time;" in the _Journal Of American Folk-Lore_ in 1911. E.C. Perrow published blues lyrics in the same journal a few years later. Associating the blues with folklore is exactly what these people were doing."The blues were a successful; almost viral; product of the music industry and professional songwriters." Sounds interesting; but it happens to be flatly false. There is no credible evidence; zero; of any pro writers creating blues songs as early as; e.g.; the folk blues song Elbert Bowman recalled he heard black workers singing by 1905; a variant of "K.C. Moan." (Bowman recalled well that the period was 1903-1905; because 1903-1905 was when blacks came through his small; heavily white town building a railroad line. His recollection fits great with those of others; such as the recollection of Emmet Kennedy regarding a variant of "Poor Boy Long Ways From Home." Not all blues music was 12-bar; and not all 12-bar music was blues music; e.g.; "Stack-a-Lee;" which existed by 1897; isnt a blues song.)"Prior to the mid-twenties; practically every commentator; with some minor exceptions; understood the blues as a commercial style." Sounds interesting; but it happens to be flatly false. Famous; Southern-born black songwriter W.C. Handy wrote in 1919 about blues: "[I]t is from the levee camps; the mines; the plantations and other places were the laborer works that these snatches of melody originate." (Handys interview with the periodical _Along Broadway_ in 1919 was consistent; the periodical wrote of the songs of the black cotton-picker and plowman and explained; "The story of Handys success in putting these weird songs to music reads like a fairy tale.") Another famous; Southern-born black songwriter; Perry Bradford; said in 1921: "[B]lues originated from old... folk lore songs." Famous; Southern-born black songwriter James Weldon Johnson explained to readers that Handys "Memphis Blues" had Handys name on it; was but was really one of those songs that just grew; in 1917. _Literary Digest_ gave the tune "The Blues" as an example of a "classic... of the levee underworld" in 1917. _Current Opinion_ wrote about "... widespread discussion of the origin of the blues; a type of folksong..." in 1919. Black classical composer Clarence Cameron White; born in Tennessee in 1880; in The Washington _Herald_ 12/3/19: "Blues... is a term derived from certain labor songs of the Negroes in the South. These people have not stopped creating folk-music with the end of the Civil War.... The blues are particularly the musical expression of road gangs; or of convict laborers." Harry Pace of Pace and Handy; born in 1884 in Georgia; in _The Evening World_ 8/26/20: "Blues... in reality is the new folk music of the American negro." Etc."Perhaps the most dramatic reinterpretation of the blues as folk songs came from the sociologists Howard Odum and Guy Johnson. They collaborated in 1925 to publish The Negro and His Songs; a large collection of African American religious and secular selections; many of which were culled from Odumrsquo;s previous academic journal articles. They equated reimagining pop tunes as folk songs blues with popular hits and emphatically insisted that they were not folk songs." Nope; thats an inaccurate description of what Odum and Johnson wrote in that book. And Odum thought in 1911 (and in 1908) that the folk blues he had collected in 1905-1908 were folk songs; which would be why he published them in 1911 in a journal called _The Journal Of American Folk-Lore_."In newspaper articles written between 1916 and 1919... [n]either Handy nor writers profiling the composer identified the blues as folk music." Nope; see the three 1917-1919 Handy-related articles I mentioned above."W.C. Handy was more responsible than anyone for establishing the blues as folk music." The only people who ever "established" blues music as folk music were the black folk musicians who invented blues music in the first place.Etc. Amazing.
