Maryland Books

At the conclusion of his monograph of why white working-class Baltimoreans abandoned the party of the New Deal, Kenneth Durr comments "We should neither vilify the lawmakers, philosophers, and clergy who helped bring about social change nor the white working people who had the furthest to go in adjusting to it." Fair enough one would think, but this is just a last disingenuous comment on a book that has been consistently evasive. For throughout his book Durr has continually damned liberals as intellectual elitists who ignore the wisdom of the (white) common people. Building on the work of such persons as Jonathan Rieder, Thomas Edsall and Jim Sleeper, Durr argues that problems developed in the fifties over white resistance to integration. Although angry working class whites used a racist vocabulary and were often admittedly racist, Durr argues that they had real concerns over blockbusting that elitist liberals didn't deal with. As the sixties and seventies wore on, working-class whites became increasingly and justifiably annoyed over liberal perfidy over school prayer, crime, the Vietnam War, student unrest and affirmative action. They had moved beyond racism, but elitist liberals were too cowardly to recognize their legitimate concerns. What's wrong with this picture? A comparison with Thomas Sugrue's Bancroft Prize winning "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" reveals no shortage of problems. For a start, although Durr lists nearly two pages of archival sources, his work relies less on what working-class whites said than what they are quoted in major newspapers. Similarly, all of his working-class white subjects tend to sound alike, tend to think alike and tend to sound like Durr. This is in striking contrast to Sugure. Added to this is the fact that Durr often refers to "Baltimoreans" and "blue collar Baltimoreans," when he is clearly referring to whites only. Most striking of all this is a story about racial conflict in which we only really hear one side of the story. Durr admits that there was often discrimination against blacks, but he does not go nearly into the extent or depth that Sugrue did. On questions such as education or housing Durr looks only at the sacrifices working-class whites have to make and pays no real attention to the gross injustices black Baltimoreans had to face.

This leads to the whole question of racism. It is all well and good to say that there was more to white protest than racism, but that is not the same as saying that white protest was just, reasonable or in good faith. Durr argues that whites were legitimately concerned about blockbusting and property values. But he concedes that they did not protest realtors or demand reform of the housing market. Instead they protested when black students entered schools or swimming pools or dancehalls. Durr quotes, and apparently agrees with, those Baltimoreans who thought that there was no moral difference between common criminals and people who used civil disobedience against segregated parks. Anti-war protestors break a few windows in Baltimore and Durr's subjects are appalled. Millions of people die in a pointless, unjust war, but their sensitivities don't matter. Of course Durr's story of urban decline does not include such factors as selfish urban machines or gross favoritism for the suburbs, which encouraged crime, poverty and a fiscal crisis that would be difficult for anyone to solve. It also does not include pollution, Republican campaigns against unions or redistribution of income to the very wealthiest. Johnson's Great Society programs and its many "middle-class" beneficiaries get only a grudging mention here. But let us suppose that Durr is right and that support for Wallace and Agnew did not reflect racist malevolence towards blacks. What then was the blue-collar white attitude towards African-Americans who, by the end of Durr's study, make up the majority of Baltimore? We don't know. Two to three centuries of malice just vanishes, and beyond that Durr fears to tread. What alternative did the community organizations offer to blockbusting, aside from trying to prevent blacks from moving? We don't know that either. Durr makes much of the unfairness of working class whites having to bear the brunt of integrating schools which suburban whites could escape from, but they hardly proposed county-wide integration or proposals to improve black schools. He speaks vaguely of some sort of "separate but equal" alliance between working class blacks and whites might have been possible had it not been, once again, elitist liberals, but he doesn't develop the point. Hardly surprising, really, since if whites do not wish blacks to live near them, work with them, sleep with them or go to the same schools, it is not likely that they will unite to the mutual benefit of both. Durr makes much of blue collar "realism" as opposed to the "abstractions" of liberal intellectuals, but he repeats their claims about welfare and dirty black quarters without any real analysis of whether that is true, or why. Durr prides his subjects for their sense of moral seriousness, yet this is a book where the most profound moral questions are evaded or the subject changed or other people blamed. As even Durr admits himself this is a working class political tradition that is often useless or ineffective or quietist when not directed about blacks. And starting with Jew-baiting against the CIO in the forties, Joe McCarthy's infamous doctored photograph against Senator Tydings, or enthusiasm for venial, shabby, dishonest people like George Wallace and Spiro Agnew, it is not a tradition known for its fine judge of character. The only way Durr can encourage our sympathy for this fundamentally demagogic practice is to adapt much of it himself.

The book jacket description listed here is misleading. This book sheds very little light on any of the individual Maryland families mentioned in the title. Its focus is on wealthy colonists as a class with little emphasis on the individual families. Furthermore, it is not really a study of the 'Maryland' elite as the title says, because it primarily limits itself to only two counties in Maryland. The book might be interesting to historical sociologists but I doubt that anyone wishing to learn details of old Maryland families would be satisfied with this purchase.

Despite the title, "daytrips and getaway weekends," this reads like a poorly organized standard travel guide. Most "itineraries" contain at least a weeks' worth of activities (would anyone consider "New York City, Long Island, and the Hudson River Valley" to be a manageable daytrip, or even weekend trip?). Some itineraries list literally hundreds of different sites and activities, while others would entail 24 hours of driving (this is not what I think of when I think "daytrip"!).

My 2nd gripe is that half the book is devoted to New York. Pennsylvania gets a big chunk of the rest, while coverage of Maryland, Virginia, DC, etc. is thin.

Finally, the maps are completely inadequate.

At the outset Lightfoot states that this book is intended for the "interested layman." As such it is a decent book with some theory, some data and a good deal of scientific philosophy, or maybe the history of science. However to any reader who may have a backround in such subjects the book seems to be a dangerous gloss of important points. It should also be stated at the outset that Lightfoot is not ashamed to put forth his own ideas on these subjects in which he may, or may not be an expert. At times this tendency is obnoxious, and occasionaly, most often in his chapter conclusions, he states his case honestly and makes it clear that there are some things which he may be mistaken in. As for his final conclusions(the last three chapters) there are a few good points, a paragraph here and there which deomonstrate either Lightfoot's knowledge of his own limitations or at least intelectual honesty. Unfortunately, for the most part these chapters are misleading, rehtorical and uninformed.

This book contains many errors regarding family genealogies. Families with similar names have been confused and names are misspelled. Family information has not been properly researched, proofread, or edited.

What a great concept- a state photo book with the option of a personalized cover. The best gift idea I've heard of in a long time. However, IDEAS often fail in their execution...

The book is of good quality itself but I was astonished at the quality of the photographs- many lacked in the quality of subject composition, some were blurry or had a bad tint, and the vast majority were simply boring. Considering that this was a largely a digital project I was very surprised. I am not a professional photographer, yet I could scrape up enough of my good shots to publish a much prettier version of Maryland. I would say about 5 photos out of the book are actually worth holding onto. Most of the photos feature people as subjects, which would have worked well if the photojournalism was better.

I do have to commend the company however on it's turn-around time on the personalized covers. I put the order in within 2 weeks of the Christmas holiday and I received it two days before the holiday. I checked the kindly provdided status link frequently and I was amazed that the job was completed within just 3 days! Although, I did end up waiting almost two weeks on pins and needles because although they claimed to send it via USPS priority mail shipping, they sent it parcel post instead.

My opinion would be to look through the book at your local store and see if you like the photos before you put your name on the front cover and personalize it. Me? I would save my money and have a photo calendar made at the local drugstore.

I thought this book:'Prince George's County Maryland', by Corpening Rowe et al would have focused more on the history of PG County. Instead it concentrated mainly, on the lives of some of the earlier families from PG and their decendents through pictures. I didn't find it useful as a historical reference book. I wanted to read something on the demographics of the county which would explain how Black people became the successful affluent majority, but would also mention other racial groups who live there too.

Lisette Felix
March 2008

Running Mates tells the story of reporter Bobby Kelleher, a political beat writer whose ordinary day in the Maryland capitol is shattered when assasins attack the governor during a speech. Kelleher and his colleague, Maureen McGuire, chase the story over the next few days as it twists and turns and ends in a dramatic climax.

Kelleher is a likeable reporter, and Feinstein nails the dynamics of newspaper politics. Editors, publishers and assorted staffers are described perfectly, and he gives a real sense of competition among daily papers and the reporters out digging for new leads. Some elements of the plot strain the reader's credulity, however, and the various conspiracies take a lot of concentration to track. Nonetheless, it's an interesting and fast-paced thriller.

At times the writing seems a bit awkward, with maybe too many inane details and sexual situations. But overall, it's a great first work of fiction from a talented writer. A sequel would be interesting, now that Kelleher's character is established. It would be fascinating to see what he covers next, and how long his editors' happiness with him lasts.

William Bloyd is my gggggrandfather and I learned my ancestors settle in Tigard Oregon by the Oregon trail. Their travels were record in the book along with wills and letters.

The person who wrote the editorial review of this book must have been reading a different book. This 'reference' is so devoid of useful information that it is the only book purchase I have ever made from Amazon where I truly feel like I deserve my money back. It doesn't even list the Native Americans that lived in the state of Maryland, much less anything about their daily life.

This book does contain a large amount of information but it reads and is set up like a glossary. It would be useful as a companion book, but not alone.