Inaccurate and offensive Oregon history

I discovered something quite disappointing the other day when I typed in the search terms "oregon history" into Google. Link # 5 led me to:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/oregon.htm

On this website I came upon such gems of inaccuracy and offensiveness as . . .

Mt. St. Joy Division

I mark every May 18 with at least a personal moment of silence for the untimely death of Ian Curtis and a reflection upon the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, both of which occurred on May 18, 1980[1].

The latter event I recall, to some degree: I was almost eight years old, living in Siletz, and I clearly remember scraping with my hand some of the light dust that had fallen on Mom's old blue Maverick when we were living in the double-wide on Willow Court. I recall Mom admonishing me for actions that could potentially harm the delicate finish on the highly valuable and pristine metallic blue Ford Maverick.[2] What a silly little boy was I! I retained a baby-jar-full of ash for many years, until I left home after graduating high school in 1990 and it disappeared in the unplanned and random dispersal of my belongings as I transitioned into and out of the U.S. Navy.

The former event -- Ian Curtis' death -- did not register with me at seven years old. I didn't get in to Joy Division until I was about 16. It was some time around the summer between my junior and senior years in high school, so that would have made it 1989. I recall clearly that one of my sister's friends' friends had made a set of mixed tapes titled "Music for the Moderns," or some such, and I, in turn, recorded these from her. On this tape were songs from certain bands and certain genres that subsequently have become the soundtrack of my life. More than that, actually -- songs and genres that have subsequently helped me define my place in the universe.[3]

On the Gulf oil spew

Unbelievable, actually.

Reasons why one particular American doesn't care about soccer . . .

Much ink -- both actual and virtual -- continues to be spilt discussing why Americans aren't as rabid about soccer as most of the rest of the world. There are many theories:

** "Soccer would be popular in the U.S., but it can’t be televised profitably because there are no natural breaks for advertisements."

** "Americans have neither the belief system nor the temperment for such a sisyphean sport as soccer. We are a society of doers, achievers, and builders. Our country is dynamic, constantly growing, and becoming ever bigger, richer, and stronger. We do not subscribe to a 'zero sum' mentality. We do not labor for the sake of laboring. And we like our sports teams to score."

** "America isn't interested in football because they can't win, plain and simple. Enough BS American propaganda."

** "Maybe the sales pitch is wrong. . . . perhaps the best hook for Americans is not the beauty of soccer, but the fact that the game is also, in truth, pretty ugly."

** "it’s a sissy sport"

** "[Americans' dislike of soccer] can be easily explained in two parts[:] First, as a nation of loony but determined inventors, we prefer things we thought of ourselves. . . . The second and greatest, by far . . . is the element of flopping. Americans may generally be arrogant, but there is one stance I stand behind, and that is the intense loathing of penalty-fakers."

** "Another big factor as to why Americans don't get as passionate about soccer is because, generally speaking, we don't have a strong sense of nationalism."

My take on the matter is . . .

Urban history in the ground

This morning I listened to a great program on Steve Scher's Weekday program (on Seattle's KUOW radio), Construction Projects and the Archaeology of City Development. This show focused on some specific urban infrastructure projects in Seattle, but the discussion addressed broadly relevant aspects of archaeology and cultural resource management (CRM) issues in urban settings.

When the 520 bridge design is finally agreed on, the digging will begin. What will we find underground? There are already several major construction projects digging deep under Seattle's urban center. In addition to all the dirt, they may be removing artifacts of this city's storied history. If the deep–bore tunnel ends up going right through a Native American village site, what happens to the construction project? What happens to the artifacts that are recovered? Who pays for the archaeological surveys? What can we learn about Seattle's hidden history from the mega–construction projects?

Recent news about the North Reach, Portland Harbor

Below are a string of recent articles on the North Reach plan (mostly for my own future reference):

Michael Pollan, "The Food Movement, Rising."

Here's an interesting multi-book review by Michael Pollan, titled "The Food Movement, Rising." Pollan's point is that "critics [of the current mainstream food system in the U.S.] are coming at the issue from a great many different directions. Where many social movements tend to splinter as time goes on, breaking into various factions representing divergent concerns or tactics, the food movement starts out splintered." The result is "a big, lumpy tent" in which sometimes the "various factions . . . work at cross-purposes." However, he does find that "there are indications that these various voices may be coming together in something that looks more and more like a coherent movement."

What are these factions reacting to?

"The way we remember the past shapes the way we understand the present and prepare for the future"

The conclusion to Jay Taylor's 1999 book Making Salmon provides some insights into the purpose and practice of history that resonate with me, so I wanted to bring some of these insights to your attention.