A few days ago as I was thinking about what to write for the newsletter this week and my partner asked if I had posted anything about why I do this work, why I created the Book of Mary. One of my early posts asks the question What is the Book of Mary? In it I talked about research and my love of the hunt for information, my almost compulsive desire to share information and elevating stories of under represented groups. All of this still holds true, but is that my Why?
My partner often tells me the story of when I told her that I wanted to go to “library school.” She says I said, “Information is power and I want to help people find information that can change their lives.” It sounds like me, but I don’t remember saying it with as much authority as she remembers.
I do believe information can changes lives. Information can instruct you how to do something you didn’t know how to before. Information can open your mind to new ideas and ways to think about the world. Information can remind you that you are not alone, you are not the only one to think this way. This is where archives come into play for me.
So many people, especially when we are young, believe we are the first ones to ever think about certain issues, the first ones to fight for justice. Since it is new for us, it must be new for everyone. But archives can tell a different story. They can tell us that there were people before us that did the work we are trying to do now. That we don’t have to start from zero. Maybe that work was reversed in subsequent years or didn’t move as fast as we had hoped, but I find great comfort in knowing that I am part of a continuum. That work I do towards justice, liberation and healing is part of a bigger story that started well before I was born and will hopefully continue after I am gone.
A few examples to ponder:
1950 - the creation of the Inter-Group relations commission in the City of Portland.
“In February 1950, the Portland City Council unanimously passed an ordinance making it illegal for public accommodations operators to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. That ordinance had been proposed and backed by a group of citizens appointed by Mayor Dorothy McCullough Lee to serve as a Mayor’s advisory committee on inter-group relations. On March 9, 1950, that group received official status as a City Commission with the passage of an ordinance creating the Portland Inter-group Relations Commission. The duties of this Commission were listed as carrying out programs of public education concerning prejudice and discrimination, investigating discrimination complaints and making recommendations to the City Council.
Shortly before the Public Accommodations Ordinance was to go into effect, a group hotel, restaurant, and tavern owners succeed in having the ordinance referred to voters. In the November ballot, the voters turned down the measure.
The Intergroup Relations Commission then undertook the project of attempting to educate businessmen who did discriminate. Since their efforts were not backed by law, they were largely unsuccessful. Finally, in April of 1953 the State of Oregon passed a Public Accommodations Law prohibiting such discrimination.”
Metropolitan Human Relations Commission (MHRC) background
1908 - While there are a multitude of ordinances and complaints discriminating against Chinese people in Portland, there was surprisingly this letter from Wilbur and Spencer Attorney’s at Law
“We represent some of the Chinese firms doing business at 4th and Flanders Streets in Portland, Oregon. It has become a part of every nights’ program for certain of the police officers to enter the Chinese building at 4th and Flanders Streets and go through the building generally, smashing every door that is locked…There ought to be the same law for the Chinaman* that there is the white man and we would like to enlist your efforts in seeing that the Chinamen are dealt fairly with and that all people are treated alike and a damage committed by officers when they have no reason to suspect that a wrong is being done, is made good. We would dislike very much to commence suits against the various police officers, but unless something is done to cause the rights of the Chinamen to be respected it will be necessary for us to proceed immediately.”
*I am quoting directly from the 1908 letter that uses this term. Archival material is filled with racist descriptions (as well as other offensive language). My goal is to use appropriate language to describe the records but not to alter the original content. Archivists are continually working on updating racist and other offensive terms in description and meta data. See the links below to learn more.
NARA’s Statement on Potentially Harmful Content
And my favorite from 1905 about Indigenous practices around fires and healthy forests that I wrote about in this post.
“I note your exceptions to my statement that the Indians preserved the forests by burning off the grass and trash every fall, thus keeping the ground clean and causing but a light fire. I would say in furtherance of my view, that in the days of my earlier boyhood and before that time, that such was the habit of the Indians, and in no case did they cause any damage, they kept the ground clean and open.”
I don’t know if all of this is one step forward two steps back, but I do know archives can remind us where we have been and give us shoulders to stand on to maybe go more steps forward than back.
Love these excerpts. These kinds of documents really make history come alive.
I love when the documents speak for themselves and say things we didn’t expect