Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 30, 2017)
OPINION 6A THE DAILY ASTORIAN • THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2017 Founded in 1873 HEIDI WRIGHT, Interim Publisher JIM VAN NOSTRAND, Editor JEREMY FELDMAN, Circulation Manager DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager CARL EARL, Systems Manager OUR VIEW GUEST COLUMN Pamplin Media Group Oregon’s future increasingly depends on new arrivals from else- where in the U.S., according to the new state economic and reve- nue forecasts issued Wednesday. With an aging population, ana- lysts say it is important to integrate these aspiring Oregonians into our economy and culture. Vote? Not so fast! By TOM WILSON For The Daily Astorian Oregon’s future T depends on new arrivals T he English poet John Donne famously wrote, “No man is an island,” in 1624. His belief that all humans are intertwined applies equally well four centuries later in Oregon. Although Donne wasn’t mentioned by name, his message — in 21st century language, “we’re all in this together” — was an underlying theme of the state economic and revenue forecasts presented to the Legislature on Wednesday. The message from Oregon’s state economists was dark humor: Oregon’s economy will continue growing, although at a slower pace, unless something happens like war with North Korea. It was surprising: As Oregon’s population ages, by 2029 more people will be dying than being born in the state. That makes Oregon’s economy increasingly dependent on people moving here from other states. It was obvious: The issue of housing affordability has spread from urban Oregon into rural areas, and Oregon’s situation is worse than in many states. It was reassuring: Jobs are increasing in rural Oregon as companies in urban areas confront a lack of workers and an inadequate supply of land for expansion. And it was ironic: The federal tax reforms making their way through Congress will reduce Oregonians’ federal income taxes. That, in turn, will increase their state income taxes because they have less federal tax to deduct. The state gov- ernment could gain so much more revenue that it causes the income tax “kicker” to take effect, providing taxpayers with a rebate in two years. These changes create challenges for employers and commu- nities alike. For employers, how can they mentally retool their opera- tions to take advantage of Oregon’s aging population, includ- ing the retirees moving in from California and other states? The experience and work ethic of older Oregonians make them a valuable commodity — if employers adjust their business operations, such as offering part-time and seasonal work for semiretirees. For communities, the challenge will be to integrate these new arrivals into a culture that might seem alien to them. For example, many will be used to paying sales taxes and pump- ing their own gas. Unaccustomed to “Oregon nice,” some will flaunt their car horns at the slightest irritation. Rain may be per- ceived as an excuse not to enjoy the outdoors. Their economic presence is needed to keep the economy growing; otherwise, the economy will retreat and neighbor- hoods will die. These new arrivals will adapt and change. And they will change Oregon. LETTERS WELCOME Letters should be exclusive to The Daily Astorian. Letters should be fewer than 350 words and must include the writer’s name, address and phone numbers. You will be contacted to confirm authorship. All letters are subject to edit- ing for space, grammar and, on occasion, factual accuracy. Only two letters per writer are printed each month. Letters written in response to other letter writers should address the issue at hand and, rather than mentioning the writer by name, should refer to the headline and date the letter was published. Discourse should be civil and people should be referred to in a respectful manner. Submissions may be sent in any of these ways: E-mail to editor@dailyasto- rian.com; online at www.dailyas- torian.com; delivered to the Asto- rian offices at 949 Exchange St. and 1555 N. Roosevelt in Seaside or by mail to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 210, Astoria, OR 97103. hroughout time, historical events have been recorded in many ways. From oral tradi- tions, to books, to movies, history has been passed from one generation to another, told and retold. The Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1803-1806 is no exception. There have been numerous books, films and documentaries as well as various publications writ- ten of this famously epic expedition. Many of these accounts were done through tireless reading, research and digging, while others have been primarily historical fiction and stretched the truth to please readers. Whether fact or fiction, many writers choose to change “consult- ing” and “opinion” to “binding vote.” Dr. Gary Moulton’s 13 volumes of every surviving journal of the expedition is known as the most accurate and inclusive edition of the Lewis and Clark journals ever pub- lished. Even with everything that was written during the nearly three year expedition, there still is plenty of room for speculation and wonder. Authors use the journals as springboards for telling a more per- sonal account of the journey, as well as trying to fill in some of the missing pieces such as emotions and feelings, which journals do not always take into account. In doing so, too many authors and speakers attempt to use modern day beliefs and mores that far too often do not reflect the times of the actual events. Such is the case when critical deci- sions needed to be made by the offi- cers of the expedition, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. One of these critical decisions was made near the mouth of the Columbia River. The expedition had finally reached its main objective: the Pacific Ocean. However, winter was drawing dangerously near, they were extremely low on provisions, not having killed an elk since crossing the Rocky Mountains. Their leather clothing had nearly rotted away, and they were extremely low on trade goods which were vital in obtain- ing food, information and whatever else the native people could supply. The Clatsop and Chinook people were perhaps the most skilled trad- ers they had encountered and had set their prices with the ship captains who had been trading with them for roughly 13 years. The expedition had 33 mouths to feed and could not rely on obtaining all of its food through trade with the natives. It was too late in the year to attempt heading back up the Colum- bia and cross the Rockies before winter. A decision of where to winter needed to be made. Many accounts that have been written in books and films say the officers took a vote of the entire party, a demo- cratic vote, to determine what to do. This is where one needs to do more research rather than relying on the retelling of historic events simply to add drama to the story. Lewis and Clark had relied on the entire party throughout the roughly 4,000 miles they had trav- eled. Decisions of which rivers to take, Sacagawea’s help with obtain- ing horses from her Shoshone tribe, which man would replace Sgt. Floyd after his death early on, were all critical decisions made by this group who had been hand-picked by the officers. They had reached Decision at Station Camp. Tom Wilson portraying William Clark at his desk. We should not make history an account of what we want it to have been. the Pacific by working as a team, trusting each other with their lives, and not letting egos get the better of them in making critical decisions. However, to think that this mil- itary party was a democratic one is a mistake. As officers in the Army, Lewis and Clark knew that they ultimately were held responsible for any and all decisions, right or wrong. A few years ago, I was hav- ing this discussion with a group of officers from Joint Base Lew- is-McChord who were studying the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a great example of leadership. Some- one asked me why famous authors and filmmakers use the word “vote” when referring to this decision. They said it has never been and will never be military protocol for officers to conduct such a vote. After discuss- ing the expedition’s situation and what was needed, a young officer added something. She said the offi- cers certainly did not call for a vote, but rather were gathering intel from the men, Sacagawea and the natives, which offered information regard- ing where elk could be found, as to where they should winter. Ever since this discussion, using the word “vote” in this situation has bothered me. When my group includes military veterans, I often ask if any of them have ever had an officer put forth a vote, whether in a critical situation or otherwise. Rarely do I get words, usually just laughter. Stephen Ambrose writes in “Undaunted Courage,” that “This is the first vote ever held in the Pacific Northwest … the first time a woman had voted.” However, this statement does not take into account that the native women who lived along the Lower Columbia River actually had influence in the decision-making policies of their people. This in no way diminishes the corps members’ input. In fact, I believe just the opposite. The offi- cers consulted each and every mem- ber including York, a slave, and Sacagawea, a trapper’s native wife, about what they thought because they greatly valued their input. They would not have chosen or brought them otherwise. Moulton’s journals record every- thing written on that day, Nov. 24, 1805. Not one of the entries men- tions the word “vote.” Joseph Whitehouse, the only private who journaled that day writes, “ … In the evening our officers had the whole party assembled in order to consult which place would be the best, for us to take up our winter quarters at.” Sgt. Patrick Gass records, “ … At night, the party were consulted by the commanding officers, as to the place most proper for winter quar- ters”. Sgt. John Ordway writes, “ … our officers conclude with the opin- ion of the party to cross the river and look out a place for winters quar- ter.” Also from Whitehouse, on Nov. 25, “ … Our officers had concluded on crossing the river, & endeavor to find a suitable place, for our winter quarters.” Even though Clark records each person’s opinion, this does not make it a democratic vote as some speak- ers and authors suggest. I strongly believe it is more uplifting that each person was “consulted,” thus show- ing the trust that each member has in the officers, and vice versa. There is only one account in the journals where a vote was taken. That is when Sgt. Floyd died, and a new sergeant needed to be chosen. In the militia as well as the regu- lar military, it was not unheard of to have the men choose from a selected group, who could be trusted and fol- lowed as a leader among them. We should not make history an account of what we want it to have been, nor should we add drama and modern-day attitudes upon it. We may like it, or dislike it, but we can- not change it, and hopefully, we learn from it. This was a military expedition and was so successful because of the chain of command making crucial decisions based on the experience and intuition of those who were chosen to be part of per- haps the greatest expedition our country has ever seen. Tom Wilson is a retired teacher and park ranger who worked at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park. He wrote this article for the park association’s newsletter.