Should Corvallis Rename Avery Park?


Making #blacklivesmatter in Oregon

By Joseph Orosco   (July 3, 2015)


(Update 2018:  Since this post was first published there have been many developments in regard to Joseph Avery’s namesake in Corvallis.  In 2016, a process started at Oregon State to investigate the historical legacy of several buildings on campus, including Avery Lodge, to determine whether the figures honored with a building name engaged in actions or thoughts that are at odds with values of Oregon State’s educational mission.  I was asked to be the co-chair of this process.  Historians were commissioned to do new research to inform OSU President Ray and the Board of Trustees.  And over the course of an academic year, community conversations and forums were held to discuss and assess the reports.  You can read about the process here.  The ultimate decision in regard to Avery Lodge was that OSU President Ray decided to rename the building.

The historical report about Joseph Avery can be found here.  Based on this most recent investigation, I would moderate what I wrote three years ago.  It’s unclear whether Avery help white supremacist views–the evidence is not conclusive.  His membership in white supremacist organizations remains speculative.  However, what does seems clear is that Avery appeared to have some kind of controlling interest in a newspaper that condoned white supremacist views and he was willing to disseminate these views for private political or economic gain–at a moment in which Oregon was enveloped in heated debates about whether to enter the Union as a pro- or anti- slavery state.  It was on that basis that OSU President Ray decided that Joseph Avery was not someone that the university should honor with a public monument.)


Since the horrid massacre in Charleston, a seismic shift has occurred across the country in regard to the nation’s white supremacist history. The Confederate flag has come to be widely reviled as a racist symbol of hatred, and many communities are reassessing their connection to Confederate monuments and public schools named after Confederate soldiers (and some monuments not tied to the Confederacy, but to colonialism in general, such as the Columbus statue in Boston that was vandalized). Major retailers have stopped selling items emblazoned with the flag and, just this week, the cable network TV Land pulled all episodes of “The Dukes of Hazard”—with its famous car, the General Lee, emblazoned with the Confederate flag–from viewing.

Defenders of the flag have tried to respond by saying it is a symbol of Southern heritage, or of the political principle of state’s rights, and not of white supremacy in particular. This argument falls apart when one realizes that maintaining white supremacy was at the forefront of most of the declarations of secession by Southern states. White supremacy was part of the fabric of Southern life, regardless of whether or not one owned slaves, and to ignore that in some kind of romanticized argument about heritage is willful moral ignorance.

Of course, the legacy of white supremacy was not something relegated to the South. Indeed, as Walidah Imarisha has pointed out in her popular Oregon Humanities talk “Why Aren’t There More Black People in Oregon?”, Oregon was established as a white supremacist homeland. Even though slavery was illegal here, the state did not permit African Americans to live or own property here. State law also threatened Blacks with brutal, state sanctioning, whipping if they remained in the jurisdiction. Walidah’s work shows how this state inhospitality has a legacy that continues even today and she urges her audiences to become aware of the local histories of their communities. ( You can watch her presentation here).

Here, in Corvallis, it is not difficult to find evidence of Oregon’s legacy of white supremacy. The founding father of the city, Joseph C. Avery, was a notorious white supremacist.

In the newspaper he founded, the Occidental Messenger, he advocated for slavery and forced labor in Oregon as a way for whites to control and make productive the “inferior” Black and Chinese races. According to local amateur historian Roy Bennett, Avery was a supporter of the Rogue River War against Native Americans in Southern Oregon, and he also belonged to the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret society whose principle aim was to invade and annex most of Mexico, Central America, and Northern South America in order to create a white supremacist circle of slave states allied to the South.

Today, one of Corvallis’s biggest and most popular parks, some streets, and an environmental sustainability program for children run by the Corvallis Environmental Center, is named after Avery.

Perhaps it is now time to reconsider Corvallis’s relationship to the white supremacist legacy of Avery and think about removing his name from public places. To take Avery’s name away from the park is not to ignore or rewrite history—we cannot deny that it was Avery who first incorporated land in this part of the Willamette Valley. As Bree Newsome, the activist who committed civil disobedience recently by removing the Confederate flag from its pole in South Carolina’s capital, said:

“There’s a difference between having the Confederate flag in a museum and having it flying over a state capitol where you have the government essentially endorsing a symbol of hate.”

Similarly, there’s a difference between having Avery’s name on a marker in the Benton County Museum, for instance, and commemorating him with the honor of a public, taxpayer-supported, park.

Some people might object to renaming Avery Park by saying that it would be hard to find a white person in Corvallis, or in Oregon, at the time that was not white supremacist. Or they might ask that if we begin by removing Avery’s name because he was a white supremacist, then what are we do about other prominent founders and politicians, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or even Abraham Lincoln, all of whom either voiced anti-black racism at some point in their life or held African Americans in bondage?

For one thing, its not true that all white people in Corvallis were white supremacists or endorsed slavery during Avery’s day. In fact, some of the oldest families in the area, such as some of the Applegates were anti-slavery and so was the Methodist founder of the nearby town of Monroe. In other words, white supremacy is not something that can be excused in Avery because it was simply taken for granted at the time; the issue of the oppression and subjugation of non-white people was a contested subject at the time and Avery made it clear on which side of the issue he stood.

And it is true that many of the revered political figures of our nation’s history were deeply invested in the maintenance of white supremacist oppression. But historian James Loewen has responded to this kind of objection in a way I find compelling. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, were both racists. But if we look at the “gists” of their lives, we can make an important distinction. Davis’s life, his most significant life contribution, is in formenting and leading an enormously destructive war to preserve white supremacy. He was, simply put, a traitor. Loewen says:

” …it’s one thing to remember history and to put up historical markers that get it right. It’s quite another thing to commemorate someone and to name stuff for him. You don’t learn anything from driving the Jefferson Davis Highway (in Virginia) about Jefferson Davis except that he was a great man and should be honored. And it’s precisely that last little bit – should be honored – that we need to take away from him.”

Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, it is true, all fell short of the universalizing moral language of equality and liberty that they gave voice to in public. That should certainly moderate the reverence we have for them. But the “gists” of their lives were much broader than those failures—Jefferson was a slaveowner, but he also championed the ideals that would be used to undermine slavery. However, if you look at the gist of Avery’s life, it’s hard to find a complicated figure, like Jefferson or like Lincoln, that deserves public honor.

Removing the monuments to white supremacy, such as Avery’s name or the Confederate flag, will not eliminate racism, but it is not just symbolic politics or political correctness to do so. As we’ve learned from the Charleston murders, symbols can do harm by sustaining a culture of hatred and violence. They can be reminders that some people are not welcome in a community (as has been the case recently in nearby Albany). In the case of Avery’s name, having it displayed publicly is a reminder that Corvallis was originally envisioned by one of its prominent citizens as a place in which people of color should have subordinate roles and that order ought to be maintained by violence, if necessary.  It was a place where black lives would not matter.  That is a legacy that should be situated in the museum, not venerated in everyday life.

13 thoughts on “Should Corvallis Rename Avery Park?”

  1. I recommend a very well researched book by R. Gregory Nokes, _Breaking Chains: Slavery on Trial in the Oregon Territory_ (OSU Press, 2013). It is as complete an accounting as I know of.

  2. If we’re going to look at the ‘gist’ of their lives, then you might want to consider that General Robert E. Lee (who inherited his slaves; he never purchased anyone) freed his slaves well before the end of the war, while Ulysses S. Grant didn’t free his until after the 13th amendment was passed stating that “good help was hard to find.” William T. Sherman also didn’t free his slaves until late in 1865. So who are the racists here?

  3. Never forget. We should all never forget the racism of our past, for we carry it yet as we do with all the echoes of history forward. The fact that the name ‘Avery’ was once affixed to this plot of land is a marker of times past, but highlights too our past. It gives reason to this very conversation, rise for excuse to educate the young. Does the name bring honor to white supremacy or is it a marker of the past and the wrong turns that were made? The shocking element here is not the name of the park, but the forgotten history of mistakes rotting and half-buried. In my youth I played ball there….this park and its name have left original meanings behind through ignorance ….have come to mean “we love Corvallis” ….let it come to mean”we can do better than those who came before us”. It is a tool of education ….expressed in the creation of this very article itself.

  4. A problem i see is that avery actually founded the city, so it would be hard to get rid of his name everywhere. Why not just own up to the history? I don’t get the idea of unnaming things because they are related to slavery or the civil war. and this process will never stop. what happens when we realize that avery or probably most people back then also didn’t think women should vote??? We need to realize that morals are always changing, so just deal with it. Get rid of the flag, not the right to have the flag, cuz people will understand that confederate flag waivers are morons.

  5. Add a historical marker that explains Avery’s role in the town and his terrible racist views….then dedicate the park (without changing the name) as a place to celebrate diversity and for peoples of all races, creeds, colors enjoy together as brothers and sisters in our beloved Corvallis. Enjoy with satisfaction a good that opposes the evil ways promoted by Avery and his cohorts. An irony that seems delicious….as we imagine Avery rolling in his grave.

  6. Only a gullible, uneducated, bandwagon-jumping nincompoop would suggest such a thing. As a proud direct descendent of JC, I’ve noticed that this sort of nonsense oozes up from the gutter every few years. It serves to remind me, as it should serve to remind others who are serious about a cause (ANY cause) that voluntary ignorance is the worm-shot foundation on which all misguided social “causes” are built. The true enemies of moral justice – and compassion as a whole – are the various brutes of victory-through-amplification: aggressive insincerity; and a self-aggrandizing and unsupported political-social compass that the truly desperate follow. They do so blindly from protest to “action” to protest again… in a never-ending crusade to make themselves whole again; to clumsily reassemble a shattered world of belief in good things, and hope that there will again one day be a safe place for them to live and love without being burned alive from the inside by self-imposed guilt. Shame on them.

      1. Mr. Scott has PLENTY of issues – however, one of them is NOT the inexcusable crime of being a public figure subject to the unfounded labels applied to him by poorly-educated apostles of armchair historians, too lazy or ignorant to conduct their own research.

    1. Well, then you’ll be pleased to find that he wasn’t – or was – or – or – maybe he ate babies, for that matter. There exists no conclusive proof one way or the other establishing JC as a “horrid racist”. Public figures make easy targets – perhaps Brian would be willing to submit to a DNA screening in the interest of discovering which race his ancestors fed to lions, or ate, or enslaved… Perhaps he would be ashamed to find out that he is the direct descendent of a horrible steelworker who assisted in the construction of Belsen-Bergen. Shame on Brian for breathing the pristine air of all those glass-house dwellers bearing stones of purity.

  7. It’s amazing how easy it is to invent the truth these days, given the general disregard shown for the citing of accurate and reliable sources. Joseph Orosco presents a shining example of this lack of concern for historical accuracy in his article of July, 2015.
    His first misstep regards his opinion of JC Avery, the founder of Corvallis. Joseph states, “The founding father of the city, Joseph C. Avery, was a notorious white supremacist.”

    This statement is most likely false. There is evidence that JC manipulated racist political factions in Oregon for his own benefit; however, there is no recorded evidence establishing JC’s position on race either way. There are currently no known documents that prove or disprove Mr. Orosco’s allegation; yet he plows forward, drawing on that sweet, sweet milk of controversy. Given that JC was a citizen of Northern Pennsylvania before migrating to the Oregon Territory, it would be reasonable to believe that he shared Northern sentiments supporting the abolition of slavery. Yes, Joseph. It really is OK with all of us when someone admits they don’t know for sure. Resorting to the blatantly inflammatory use of “notorious” only serves to discredit the thesis.

    Joseph Orosco further erodes his credibility when he shares, “In the newspaper he (JC) founded, the Occidental Messenger, he advocated for slavery and forced labor in Oregon as a way for whites to control and make productive the “inferior” Black and Chinese races.”

    This information is more easily proven false. JC has never been established as the “founder” of the Occidental Messenger. The Corvallis Public Library holds several of the few existing copies of the “Messenger”; nowhere is JC identified as a founder, editor, or contributor – unless you count his dry goods store advertisement. Several of the few remaining copies of the “Messenger” are available on Microfiche at the Corvallis Public Library. Please consider taking the high road and doing research for yourself.

    Joseph Orosco makes what is perhaps his most heinous error in judgement when he begins to rely on the testimony of “local AMATEUR HISTORIAN Roy Bennett…” (Would you trust your teeth to Roy if he were a “local amateur DENTIST”?)
    Apparently, Roy believes that “Avery was a supporter of the Rogue River War against Native Americans in Southern Oregon”

    I, Joe Scott, am a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. I am a direct descendent of the Takelma people of the Rogue Valley; the “Native Americans” Roy refers to. The assertion that Avery was a supporter of the Rogue Wars is preposterous. Any doubts should be cleared up by contacting the Tribe’s historian, currently Robert Kentta.

    Roy also seems to believe the following:
    “…he also belonged to the Knights of the Golden Circle…”

    Once again, Roy, the “amateur historian” – through complete ignorance; or possible malice – misleads the reader. This claim is universally refuted by ACTUAL historians, including countless students of Oregon history. This misinformation is fairly easily dispatched through a records search on the Oregon Historical Society website; documents not accessible on the Web can be found in their archives in Portland.

    The only way to access the truth when confronting aforementioned issues is to consult, without exception, PRIMARY documents and sources. Anything less is irresponsible, revisionist, and destructive. Joseph Orosco would do well to keep this in mind the next time he elects to embark on the sharing of information designed to sway public opinion, and to the contrary succeeds in little more than exposing his own failings as a purported authority.

  8. There would not even be a town had it not been for the founder:
    Nowhere and Nothing to say.

    This quickly amounted and generalized witch hunt of historic people ( not alive to state their case ) is easy pickings for those trying to grandstand and have their name publicized on issues that can better be left to history.

    Question: What are you doing today to make the world a better place for ( real time issues ) inequality ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.