Review of The Founding of New Acadia: The Beginnings of Acadian Life in Louisiana, 1765-1803, by Carl A. Brasseaux

Louisiana’s Acadian heritage is a legendary part of not only its history but its very cultural identity, an aspect of its background that has made it a distinctive region. Yet how and why Acadiana became a hub of “Cajun” settlement and its true boundaries are little-known to all but the most knowledgeable of south Louisiana history. If anyone has an interest in learning the facts about Acadiana and separating truth from fiction, one cannot find a better source on the subject than Carl A. Brasseux’s Founding of New Acadia. I recently listened to an audiobook version of the title.

A native of the region and longtime instructor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (the “Ragin’ Cajuns!), Brasseaux is the author of more than two dozen books and is a specialist in the cultural history of south Louisiana. His nonfiction writings, ranging from monographs on settlements to discussion of race and regional foodways, form an essential catalog of writings on Acadiana. The Founding of New Acadia, originally published by LSU Press in 1987, still stands as perhaps the essential standard resource on the Acadians.

As Brasseux chronicles in a swift-moving but thorough narrative, the Acadian story begins in Nova Scotia in the early eighteenth century, where these French-speaking settlers created a community that survived British acquisition of the territory they inhabited through a special recognition of neutrality. This arrangement broke down during the French and Indian War, as British authorities came to view the French enclave as a potential threat to the colony’s safety and had it deported. Ultimately more than 12,000 people were forcibly relocated between 1755 and 1764 and resettled in various British seaboard colonies, with a large concentration originally being sent to Maryland. A substantial portion, nearly 3,000 in total, were first sent to northern France before being resettled in North America. Only in the 1770s were many of these groups finally sent to the Attakapas region of what is today south-central Louisiana. There they would found several communities that endure to this day.

Brasseux chronicles this story of diaspora and cultural resilience in detail. Along the way he relates the story of how their most legendary communities took root in the eighteenth century Gulf South and came to be the iconic region of Louisiana that it is today. Information on Acadian lifestyle, relations with Spanish, Indian, and Creole neighbors, and their enduring cultural heritage are related in this definitive study. As Brasseux points out, this relatively small group of people has had an outsized influence on regional cultural heritage over the centuries despite their longstanding insularity. Today, he argues, Cajun society is thriving as never before.  

JMB

Review of the movie Napoleon

I am always excited to see historical based movies and therefore was thrilled when I saw they were making a blockbuster about one of my favorite subjects, Napoleon. With award winning director and actor Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix respectively, I was positive this would be a movie I would enjoy. Understanding Hollywood would make many creative changes to the story, I still expected to watch a spectacular movie about one of the world’s greatest leaders. I could have never been more wrong.

What we got was nothing but a character attack on one of the 19^th century’s premier world and military leaders. Focusing mainly on his obsessive and unhealthy relationship with Josephine, the movie barely touched upon his accomplishments and meteoric rise to fame as a child of the French Revolution.  We seem to only see an immature, insecure man captivated by Josephine and making decisions based solely upon his desire for her. Yes, that relationship greatly influenced his decisions and his life, but not to the absolute dismissal of everything else. The theme of the movie’s director is never more clear than in one historically incorrect scene depicting Napoleon abandoning Egypt (and his army) to return to France for the sole reason to find out if the rumor of her infidelity was true.  

Napoleon’s genius in military matters was hardly touched upon. He is mainly portrayed as a butcher as was summarized by one of the last clips of the film simply showing the casualties from some of his most noteworthy battles. His greatest victory at Austerlitz is dismissed as the result of an exaggerated isolated incident in which his army allegedly lured enemy soldiers onto a frozen river and then blasted the ice with artillery. The director uses this historical footnote to communicate an exaggerated notion of Napoleon’s savagery. Other victories over the Italians, Austrians, Prussians, and even Russians were not even mentioned. But of course, the Russian Campaign of 1812 was shown in detail, which it should have, but to not to represent it as equal with all his other victories that helped him form his empire is a major disservice.

Napoleon had faults and was a tyrant and dictator. But what about his accomplishments? Scientific discoveries in Egypt? The creation of a civil code (Code Napoleon) that revolutionized government? And most of all, the groundbreaking ideals of the Revolution where one could advance by his own efforts and merit as compared to one’s family status; an ideal of which Napoleon was the purest example. A Corsican from humble stock who through his abilities and accomplishments rose to be the most powerful man in Europe! That should be the story! Nope, the movie instead depicted silly scenes highlighting his strange quirks and infatuation with Josephine.

Again, I am aware Napoleon caused untold harm across Europe and the world, but this was a targeted and one-sided account. Maybe the British Director used his platform to get revenge at one of his country’s greatest villains. I don’t know. I simply know that the historical, factual story of Napoleon, with all of its nuances and intrigues, would have made a captivating movie for everyone. The numerous negative reviews I have seen on the movie seem to back up my opinion.

I always wondered how one could make a movie in 2 ½ hours that tells the grand story of Napoleon: the good, the bad, and the ugly. My question remains unanswered, as I surely know this was not what I saw.  I left the theater disappointed and mad.  Audiences, many for whom this will be their only encounter with the famed French Emperor, deserved better. So did Napoleon.

CPW