Talk:History of British Columbia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of British Columbia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Indebtedness of Colony/Colonies

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

However, poor judgement and mismanagement of funds made by the gold rush left B.C. in debt by the mid-1860s. In 1866, because of the massive debt leftover from the gold rush, the mainland and Vancouver Island became one colony named British Columbia, with its capital in Victoria.

Hi there; lots of work to do around this page; wish I had the time/resources to spend a lot of energy on it (I learned my lessons about sovervolunteering elsewhere....). In the case of the above comment, which I gather might have been yours (FishHead64?) it sounds pretty much like something Barman or Bowering would cough up (like a furball), i.e. both of their tomes are full of pat descriptions of actually complicated material, and quick judgements are too often presented as established fact. That's my complaint in general about historiography in BC, but until I'm a published source on the questions at hand (which may come about one day) I can't pull up any specific cites, not easily anyway; and my copy of the Akriggs' Chronicle has been on loan for too long now (to a worthy cause/friend, who created www.fortlangley.ca).

From what I've been able to get a handle on - from Hauka, Morton, and Donald Marshall's paper on the gold rush (UBC thesis a few years ago; can't remember its title at the moment; found quite a few older theses on the gold rush while looking around the SFU library; send you the bibliog if you want) - and other stuff which covers colonial politics in fair detail, both colonies were in a serious cash crunch from Day One, the mainland necessarily worse than the Island. The whole point of a colony is to run in the red, if you think about it; to fund infrastructure in order to assert political claim and expedite the extraction of resources and other exports. In the case of the Mainland, it was either fund the colony (by running it into the red) or lose the territory altogether; because rest assured if the British colonial authorities didn't build infrastructure to service the goldfields, someone else would. And that someone else would be American private enterprise, quickly backed up by American political and military clout; so Douglas (and London) had no choice. I don't think "poor judgement" is quite the way to put it; certainly not on Douglas' part, and not really even on Seymour's (actually Birch's, as mentioned elsewhere). More like they snookered themselves right off the bat; and given that the Gold Commissioners and Magistrates were, nearly to a man, a bunch of crooks and swindlers (Hicks in particular), then the issue arises of the accountability of revenue collection, i.e. all those mining licenses, water licenses, business licenses, fines and fees exacted at Yale and elsewhere.....well, where did all the money go, huh? Same with the $25 "subscription" paid by the 500 men working on the Douglas Road to fund the road-construction costs; a lot of shillyshalling and funny bookkeeping went on with THAT affair, which produced a non-road that had to be rebuilt (and rebuilt again) at great expense by the REs, only to be abandoned shortly thereafter. Even having to split the policing load between the REs, the Bluejackets, the Marines and the Voltigeurs (and the erstwhile black militia...or were those the Voltigeurs?) because of budget constraints was a major thorn in Douglas' side; and similar costs were a problem for Seymour during the Chilcotin and Lamalcha Wars, come to think of it. I'd venture that it was lackadiasical half-interest and stingy half-measures from London that were the real problem, as had also been the case with the Boundary Settlement and the earlier abandonment of a transplantation colony for the Lower Columbia and Puget Sound (which would have secured the region for the Empire).

Also, given that little in the way of royalties was ever charged....well, to me it's always seemed stupid to have spent so much money on gold-extraction infrastructure without actually having any significant revenues coming from royalties; and so much of that unreportable and which no doubt left the country undeclared (either overland to the US, or in coffins and other shipments bound for China; the same coffins which Barman waxes so poetic about how deep the Chinese miners' feelings for their home country were etc). I just read a passage on the Gold Escort (in Derek Hayes' Historical Atlas, which you should get if you don't have it) and the comment from Douglas in his despatch to the colonial office was about how expensive it was going to be, but it "had to be done". The alternative was to abandon the claims to govern the territory, and that's that; London expected Douglas and his successors to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (a grizzly sow, no less) and, while demanding he expedite infrastructure and open things up for settlement, did little to help him; and even demurred on active colonization/immigration policies for their new domain. The union of the Two Colonies was pretty well ordered by London, as we know, largely to expedite union with the impending Confederation of Canada farther east; and also because, having squeezed the colonies dry and made them do so much with virtually nothing, then blamed them for having done nothing and having wasted money. I'll grant that there was endless corruption right to the next-to-highest levels (I don't get the impression that Douglas or Seymour were corrupt, not intentionally anyway), but I dont' think mismanagement of funds is the real case; more like complete LACK of funds.

My two bits for now; and I'll come up with a rewording of the quote which satisfies the views I've brought forward.Skookum1 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And PS I think the list of native languages at the start might better be served by having a link there to the BC section of one of the Indigenous Languages pages; I'll figure out which one; same with other bits which restate things found on other pages. Presumably the Colony pages will have their own history sections more fleshed out in future, so that can be linked over too.Skookum1 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did some revisions to the sections on the early fur-trading and colonial history of British Columbia (my own areas of interest). I note, howver, that the section on the 20th century in BC deals largely with social trends, particularly immigration, First Nations, and (oddly enough) Prohibition. Absolutely nothing is said about the economic or political history of the province during this period. Nothing about the logging or fishing industries. Nothing about the collapse of coalition government and the rise of the Social Credit and W.A.C. Bennett. A short mention of the hydroelectric boom of the 1960s. But that's it. Anyone with more expertise in these issues willing to take on revising this section? Fishhead64 18:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to, but it's deep water and as noted above I don't have the time/energy for the indepth writing/research needed; and the closer you get to "now", the more contentious any attempt at non-partisan history becomes; as witness the pages for the BC Libs, NDP, Socreds etc and any of the Premiers; I have yet to get around to writing an article on the Solidarity Crisis (for lack of a better name) in 1983, partly because of the political and emotional minefield involved; and there's spin doctors who patrol Wikipedia, esp. on the political party pages; the high-gloss shine on Boss Johnson's page is remarkable, given what else I'd heard about him (which isn't there). And even on the WAC page there's not much discussion of the political poker game he played with Washington and Ottawa over the Columbia River Treaty and the Two Rivers Policy (if it wasn't for Paddy Sherman's book/bio, I never would have appreciated the importance of the latter). As for the politics of the '30s, that's hugely deep water and a political minefield of the first order; the On-to-Ottawa Trek thing as it played out in BC (ever heard of the Gatling the Army placed on the tracks at Hatzic to stop the train?...and where did all those men get interned anyway?), martial law in the port, the rout at Cumberland and more hot potatoes; or, as re US prohibition there should be a whole bit on how Vancouver's economy in the 1920s was based on it; but NO, we live by the myth that timber built this place (but, as with the gold, since they were virtually giving the trees away for free, that seems a wild claim, doesn't it?). And as for the history of the province since Expo; yeah, well, what cites can you use but the daily papers, and they're not valid primary sources to start with (bafflegab/advertising/spin marketed as fact); there's not even an article on Gracie's Finger, come to think of it; but that's a needle in a haystack relative to what else there could be. So yeah, there's lots that needs doing; I think maybe we should start an index/table of topics that need addressing on the Talk page (here) and see who bites....Skookum1 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Topics

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vancouver Dock Strike ('30s; the one in the '70s is also important, but less politically/critically so)
Post Office Riot/occupation and the Unemployed crisis in Vancouver '30s
On-To-Ottawa Movement in BC (could probably be separate article as with others in this list; the current On-to-Ottawa trek article is Prairies only)
The Cumberland Mine Strike (and many others in the Kootenay; same with the Bralorne-Pioneer Mine strike c.1940)
Formation/politics of BC Hydro (Bridge River Power Project is an article I'll get around to writing as I have the resources and pics; my Dad was construction superintendent); massive post-war infrastructure introduced by Boss Johnson/Royal Maitland and continued by WAC (esp. highways as well as hydro)
Elimination Ballot/politics
The Coalition (I've put Liberal-Conservative Coalition on the various BC elections/ridings pages, but some (in other provinces) have suggested it's not necessary to create; and someone else has redirected this to Coalition government, which mostly discusses UK politics; I maintain that the Coalition was a uniquely-BC beast and needs its own article; more on that another time.
The Solidarity Crisis
The Peace Movement (1980-82; subsumed by Solidarity in '83 and lots in the woods ever since IMO, other than as a group of dedicated individuals like Mr. Loney & Co.)
The Draft Dodgers; founding of Gastown and Kits hippie communities; the Straight etc. (there's no article on Harold Hedd in the cartoonists section; if I can find Rand Holmes I'd like to get permission to repro some for Wiki...)
Freedomites vs Reform Doukhobours; in migration of Reformed Mennonites to Fraser Valley (50s and 60s)
failure of other ethnoreligious communes/communities at Hagensborg, Holberg, Sointula, Webster's Corners and elsewhere (marginal notice; could be separate article but these are often cited by p.c./post-mo historians as if they were representative of the etnic diversity here; when really they were latecomers); BTW current Metlakatla article deals pretty much only with New Metlakatla (AK), and barely touches on William Duncan, who I'm sure you know about and, hmm, now there's a bio for YOU to write up, I'd think......
Railway vs roadway politics in the growing metropolis, i.e. the interurban's/street railways abandonment after WWII

I'm getting lost in the woods, admiring the trees; not everything above should be in this main synopsis article; but like you I agree there's one heck of a lot missing; other topics; ideas pls add.Skookum1 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages and various Indigenous peoples project article/talk pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my posting of this: if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issues relating to Oregon Country/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest history/historical geography, colonialist or aboriginal/indigenous, please feel free to drop by the forum and start a thread/topic, or just butt in at yer leisure.Skookum1 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first notable European settlement in B.C. was John Meares, a Briton. Although the British had been exploiting the sea otter trade for years, the Spanish explorer, Balboa, had laid claim to all lands that the Pacific Ocean falls upon for Spain in 1513. When a Spanish expedition was sent up the B.C. coast, they seized Meares's property at Nootka Sound in 1787.

I'll be fixing this; the Spanish digs were just up a short channel in another part of Nootka Sound from where Meares tried to set up shop. Whole thing was a bit dodgy and diplomatically tricky, as it involved the captivity of a British subject by one of Britain's historic imperial rivals; I've read several good accounts of the details, which I'll dig out and rewrite this section properly with.Skookum1 05:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a bit contradictory -- by some accounts, there was already a Spanish military and trading outpost on Nootka Sound before Meares's settlement. Yet, the article reads as though Meares's settlement was the first - can someone clarify?

Also, the Spanish claim actually dates back to the Inter caetera papal bull of 1493, which divided the globe into Spanish and Portuguese areas of claims. The Spanish half of the globe included the west coast of North America. Balboa's claim re-asserted this existing claim.

NorCalHistory 08:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nootka Conventions

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on the Nootka Conventions states that Spain did not "cede" or give up its claims, only that in the Nootka Convention, Spain allowed other countries to trade in the Pacific Northwest as well. In other words, all parties reserved the claims and rights, and "agreed to disagree." This article says that Spain gave up its rights. However, the Nootka Convention article seems more accurate, because Spain actually transfered its claims north of the 42nd parallel to the United States in the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, suggesting again that Spain retained its claims to the Pacific Northwest until that time. Could someone please correct and/or clarify?

I gather you're the same person as NorCalHistory with a similar question farther above; and the answer is yes. I meant to come back to this page and untanble a lot of that stuff, but never got around to the source reading like I'd meant to, and I'm a multi-tracker and have been preoccupied with other topics. This page needs a whole lot of sorting out, also, and even looking at it now I don't know where to start with the fixes. The particulars of the Nootka Conventions are typically fuzzy in mainstream Canadian/BC histories and they are often presented as a Spanish surrender, which they weren't, as you note: they were a surrender of Spanish exclusivity, more like. And the whole Meares affair and the character of Meares are part of the scenario and also typically absent from popular histories. Point-form, fuzzified history is all too common in the press, and in curriculum, as noted: I submit that even most people with graduate degrees in BC history rarely read the corpus of early materials, and very few, if any other than maybe James Delgado and the aforementioned Derek Pethick, have any firm grasp on the politics and events of Nootka; modern "big" histories by Barman and Bowering and McLennan and others barely touch on it, and treat it dismissively as being irrelevant to the "reality" of First Nations life at the time (a big weakness of modern "scholarship" is its willingness to dismiss non-First Nations history/sources: the premise is supposedly that the imperial posturing for control in the area was not related to the facts on the ground; no, not in the short term, but history provides the rest of the retort to that, doesn't it?). Similarly US-oriented articles also gloss over this material, no doubt drawing on similarly cribbed histories as on this side of the border, such that I've done a few fixes on the Oregon boundary dispute, Oregon Country and related pages but there's still work to be done. Anyway, this is notice I DO intend to fix this; gotta cinch up my drawers and get 'er done I guess...other details that are awkward here are the opening slash about fur traders and the simplistic pre-Contact native account of the opening, which doesn't address inter-native warfare or what population movements/interactions are known of from the oral tradition (e.g. the migration and extinction of the Stuwix, the Lillooet-Chilcotin-Shuswap War, the Okanagan-Lakes War, the Thompson-Lillooet War, the Euclataws migration to the northern Georgia Strait and their raiding of established peoples already in that area, and so on).Skookum1 00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for omiting the four tildes above (an oversight!). The presence of Spanish troops this far north is one of those novel gems that has been more or less lost to history, but explains a lot - and you may be the only person on WPedia with any kind of knowledge about this little tidbit! Would it be possible to make at least the basic corrections in the relevant articles - even if not a full-fledged, fully referenced article section? If you're hesitant to do so, I'll be glad to make just the basic corrections with my name, if you'll let me know that I'm in the right ballpark! NorCalHistory 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New Template

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been working on a new template for the Histories of the Provinces. See here:

Do you think we need it? And is this the right format for it? Thanks. Kevlar67

looks good to me, and would encourage history articles for those red-linked provinces/territories. Bobanny 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, while we're at it, I can't remember if they're on the article requests page of not - [[Site C[] already exists I think - but Moran Dam/Moran Canyon Dam Glen Fraser Dam/Glen Fraser Canyon Dam and Lillooet Canyon Dam were all big-r river politics; all conceived originally as the same project, ditto with the Tatlayoko-Homathko hydroelectric project proposal, which has since been trimmed down from its original mega-grandiosity; now it's just ordinary-grandiose; the Taseko-Chilko diversion has been ditched, as I recall, but the main series of dams on the Homathko are still on the auction block; one at Murderer's Bar aka the Grand Canyon of the Homathko River; any Moran-Glen Fraser-Lillooet Canyon would have of course netirely blocked the Fraser, and the lower Bridge. I think the two lower ones were meant more for spill-control than power, although the idea was to extract every available bit of head from the river; the doesn't descend quite so rapidly again until below Siska/Boston Bar. I"m trying to think of the others than were blocked - the Stikine for sure, but nure of the damsites. There was also talk of a higher dam on Stave Lake, but they settled for an upgrade on Stave Falls without raising it (it can only be rasied so much because of the elevation of hte Stave moraine north of Hatzic Prairie, which is the Stave Glacier's old out flow plain; and even with the Bridge River project there's local grousing that Hydro has long-term plans to raise both Terzaghi Dam and Seton Dam. Mind you, given climate change and reduced water flows this might be a moot point (our glaciers will last a few decades longer than those in the Rockies, but....). Anyway, hydro in general in BC isn't covered as thoroughly or as chhesively as could be; cf Grand Coulee Dam or Hoover Dam or most other US dam pages; takes a specialist in the field (hint, hint). I've een meaning at some point among innumerable as-yet-undone personal wikiprojects to transfer a lot of what I do have on hand into wikidom; but I won't have the time (myself) ;-) Skookum1 08:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we not use the mauve/purpures? Or is this a Cdn-standard in wiki, as I've noticed on most of our templates; Oregon's history template uses a dark brown, more than a bit heavy, but there's no hard-and-fast rules on colours are there? Similarly thought the same about our FN templates e.g. {{Nlaka'pamux First Nations}} or

First Nations. With BC only templates maybe the pale green from the BCproj wikibox, "with earth tones", and for the FN ones the red-black theme comes up, more with coastal peoples but even a more "First Nations look" of any kind there might help; I was thinking in terms of choice of colour but maybe there's other options (a logo, certainly).Skookum1 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute & Corrections: Columbia River Treaty

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The section on the Columbia River Treaty is problematic. In addition to containing factual errors, I believe that it is not written from a neutral perspective. It would be accurate to say that some scholars have interpreted the Treaty as having been unfavorable to British Columbia. Many other scholars have concluded that it was an equitable deal. I'm not sure where the 'lost $808 million' came from. I am writing my senior thesis for my bachelor's degree on the treaty, and have spent ten weeks researching the topic. This part needs some serious work, and I don't have the time to do it right now. I would suggest that the section be temporarily removed, put back later after agreement can be reached on factual accuracy and neutral view. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please accept my apologies if I've made mistakes of protocol in posting this, I'm still reading and learning the rules. Thanks Smithe26 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That section is only 2 sentences; surely you could be bold and ammend it? You're probably the only specialist on that little corner of BC history in a sea of generalists, and if the original writer or another editor disputes your change, then it could be hashed out on the talk page and disputees can start coughing up sources to settle the matter. Another option is to add a {{fact}} tag to let the reader know it's a contested claim (personally I don't like that option). What better way to hone your skills at synthesizing your topic than to polish up this article (and Columbia River Treaty for that matter)? cheers, bobanny 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobanny: I know school can be all-consuming (been there, done that), but WP thrives on its skilled and knowledgable editors. A sentence or two is all that is needed in what is, after all, a very expansive article. My suggestion is work on Columbia River Treaty-related articles and distill the re-working down into, oh, I don't know - a couple of dozen words. fishhead64 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. And could you please explain better the Two Rivers Policy and the "downstream benefits"; also WAC's manoeuvering and bluster about separation should be in here, if it's not alread. And I concur that it's POV as to whether the deal was bad for BC or not; WAC was a hard-bargainer and it could have been a lot worse (if it was bad, i.e. I mean economically; flooding the Arrow Lakes was definitely bad, likewise Big Bend/Mica...the interconnections with the various dams andproposed dams on the CR vs the NAWAPTA wet dreams of....Simon Reisman was it?...should at least have a see also.Skookum1 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. Tell you what I'll do, I'll just go ahead and be bold, and simply rewrite this bit to the best of my abilities with proper citation of sources. If anyone feels that my edits are not from a neutral point of view or so forth, we can discuss the matter here and come to agreement. Expect a new section on the Columbia River Treaty in the next day or so. Smithe26 06:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Great; I have, by the way, all Hydro's old bumpf brochures fro mthe '50's/early '60s, and a provgov book from the '50s called Water Power(s?) of British Columbia that summarizes the flow and potential of every major stream in the province; it was my Dad's, the borchures were collected from the info slots at his office, which was as production super for the eastnrn Fraser Valley; no connection to Treaty Dams, though, other than I have some of their brochures and the book is pre-Columbia Treaty entirely. As for the Two River(s) Policy (I've always heard it in the plural -??) there seeemd to be an excellent rundown of it in Paddy Sherman's Bennett (or WAC Bennett?), but I didn't follow it in enough detail to be able to summarize it post facto. O was surprised to see the NAWAPTA acronym redlinked; let's try North American Water and Power Treaty Authority (or North America Water and Power Treaty Authority?) which was to be the governing body's name...obviously needs an article, even though it never got built (not so far anyway....let's see if Simon Reisman has a na rticle -you'd think he would as the main negotiator on the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, if not for NAWAPTA (let's try NAWAPA).Skookum1 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got Fish versus Power by Matthew D. Evenden around here somewhere; admittedly, I didn't read it all that closely, but from what I recall, it was an engaging account of BC river politics. If I get a chance, I'll take another look; it'd be a good source for beefing up the history section of the Fraser River, if not here as well. bobanny 08:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sicne it's late, here's yet another tangent....since you bring up fish vs. power on the Fraser; I'm not sure what to call any prospective aticle discussing the often-violent conflicts over the fishery between FNS and the DFO, and the DFO and commercial fishermen (sports fishermen tend to use lobbyists instead of blockades), and sometimes beteween FNs and the commercial fishermen. Fisheries conflict on the Fraser River/[Fisheries conflicts on the Fraser River]] maybe? Most of the "action" of late has been on the Lower Fraser, esp. from Chilliwack upstream a ways. But back in the 1970s there was, as even stated in the Sun at the time, "a shooting war" in the Fraser Canyon between armed DFO and First Nations fishermen; some of those arrested included prominent chiefs. It was never given a name as a "war" but certainly ranks in the "Conflicts in Canada" category; not that this has (directly) to do with Hydro (except that at Lillooet/SetonBridge the hydro devleopment destroyed the Cayoosh, Seton and Bridge River runs...the Bridge's used to be one of the largest..Skookum1 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

language re Spanish "colony"

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Esteban José Martínez, Sevillan born Spanish explorer who founded the Spanish fort in Nootka Sound in 1789. It can be considered the first formal colony in the region (prior to that there was only a trade post founded by the Englishman John Meares).

...as the text runs in the See Also section, and similar in the intro. But I'm uncomfortable with calling Fort San Miguel a colony. For one thing in Maquinna's eyes the Spaniards and Meares alike were just tenants or guests, or anyway people he'd sold the equivalent of fee simple rights to. In Spanish eyes this already was a part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, so already part of a colony; the establishment of a presidio yes implied colonization but not a colony as such. I'm not hostile to Spanish content in BC history at all, in fact I welcome it and would welcome an article on teh scientific expedition ship the Aranzazu, which was one of the largest ships on the Coast in the period of the marine fur trade; I look forward to reading the PDF Onofre has posted (I speak/read Spanish fairly well). I'd go for "first formal colonization of the region" rather than "first colony". As for Meares only having a trading post, that's decidedly a Spanish POV on the foundations of the Nootka Crisis ;-). So the logic/content of this whole sentence is debatable; one thing Fort San Miguel wasn't was a permanent colony. I'll save my comments about the Nootka Convention for the appropriate spot in teh previous discussion; I'm just indicating we have to be careful with interpretive statements about the competing imperial histories/perspectives; Meares vs. the Spaniards is what brought British power full-bore onto the area, and set the stage for the Nootka Convention; but what really ended Spanish interest in teh area (and,temporarily, British interest), were the Napoleonic Wars.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The first formal colony in the area was, in fact, the Colony of Vancouver Island in 1849; the Oregon Territory created in 1846 was not a colony. Maybe Russian America could be defined as a colony, despite its corporate nature (unlike Rupert's Land it was directly claimed by the Crown, not defined by a trading license); I'll look into it. But to Spain, a "colony" was not declared, nor a separate administration nor governor/viceroy; this was, to Spain, already part of New Spain, the presidio was just a new local office opening up. And settlers? I'm unaware of Spanish settlers, other than the troops manning the fort; despite Spain's vast claims, like France's to Louisiana or modern Canada's to the emptiness of the Arctic, are not backed up by any meaningful presence on the ground; symbolic ones at key points but...Spain may have published maps showing it had possession of the area; but Massachussetts published maps showing it owned a horizontal stripe of North America over to the Columbia or so, too....(at least, thinking of that, it was a Boston company which had founded Astoria, if never made it profitable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooops missed taht sig....just to add "formal colony" has a very precise meaning; Fort San Miguel doesn'st qualify; nor does Fort Langley or Fort Vancouver or Fort Astoria, for that matter.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the Spaniards in the British Columbia and Alaska?

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

It is a fact that the Spaniards reached the British Columbia and Alaska, building forts and fighting with the Nootkas. It should be mentioned!

Check this, for example:

"El Virreinato de Nueva España fue el nombre dado por la administración pública colonial española a la región del continente americano comprendida por el actual México, más los actuales estados de California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Nuevo México, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, Washington y partes de Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma y Louisiana en los Estados Unidos de América. La parte suroeste de Columbia Británica en Canadá."

Or this, an official study from a history foundation of the autonomous government of Catalonia that explains the ventures of Catalan volunteers in Oregon and the British Columbia in the 18th century (it is in Catalan, but I guess it's easy to understand that "Els catalans a la Colúmbia Britànica al s.XVIII" means "The Catalans in the British Columbia in the 18th century").

And there are many more sources that can be provided.

All this stuff should be in the article. There were forts with soldiers there, ruling the region. Obviously there weren't big colonies, but the region was officially part of the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ola! Que tal? Other than User:NorCalHistory I'm probably more "up" on this than most others here, and it's worth saying for starters that there's a LOT of stuff that's not in this article that should be (yet). Bodega y Quadra is mentioned at least, though barely, but Fort San Miguel - the Spanish presidio at Nootka Sound should definitely be (esp. as control of it was the pivotal point in the Nootka Convention. But that was it for Spanish settlements in what is now BC, although there were many voyages by Spanish scientific/exploration ships (the detailed journals of which remained secret in Madrid for a long time, although the names of the ships were known; nobody yet has gotten funding to go poke through the imperial naval archives to dig up material on the era of BC-as-part-of-New Spain. There is one other semi-apocryphal Spanish/Mexican settlement that was suppose to be at Bellingham Bay, which the historian(s) who theorized it dubbed "Hermosa" (part of Bellingham today is known as Fairhaven, which is a rough equivalent); but there were supposed to be privateers/buccaneers/corsairs, and refugees from Spanish rule; supposedly, according to this account, they were one reason why the Spanish didn't try to penetrate the Strait of Juan de Fuca at first....the Hermosa crew are believed by the historian in question to have hiked overland to the Okanagan, but gave up on the enterprise and tried to make it back to the Coast, getting slaughtered by the Similkameen Indians at Keremeos, British Columbia on the return trip; there's also a story around Osoyoos, British Columbia, right near the border, that a Spanish expedition in search of Cibola got that far, but I don't know if that's ever been cited or whose/which expedition it was. Anyway, there's a very nicely detailed account of Spanish activity in the region on History of the west coast of North America, which was authored by NorCalHistory; feel free, remember, to add/adapt here - if you feel something should be added, please do so.Skookum1 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW There's also a LOT of material on Mexicans and other Latin Americans in BC during the gold rush and ranching era of the 19th Century that's not yet in Wikipedia, and generally not in most published histories either (which focus on the Chinese, the British gentry, and the Americans mostly, even though there were thirty other peoples here in addition to the First Nations/Native Americans). For instance, the community of Fountain, British Columbia in the Fraser Canyon, now mostly an Indian Reserve, was homesteaded by a Mexican named Lorenzo (see this and if you'd care to please adapt it into Spanish Wikipedia! - I have another short account on "Lorenzo's Fountain" as well as other details of the Mexican/Latin presence (Lorenzo was Latin-American by adoption as I gather but Italian in origin as I've just found out by cruising that article...) in the Canyon/Interior which if you're interested I could add, though my Spanish isn't good enough to translate them...more on this via email (link at left) if you're interested in more as I won't be on Wikipedia after tomorrow.....Skookum1 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I just read through that article, which was just sent to me last night, and despite my earlier impression that Lorenzo was a Spanish name, he was of course Italian and only transited Panama en route to BC; Italians were also a big part of the gold rush and gold rush-era settlement in that area; I'll try and find some specific passages concerning Mexicans/Latins for you, though...Skookum1 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question:

All this stuff should be in the article. And in the map! I don't understand why the map does not even mark the British Columbia, and the part of Oregon is stated as "explored but never controlled", when in fact, there were forts with soldiers there, ruling the region.

Which map? No map on this page (yet).....as for "explored but not controlled" that is a truism; there were NO European powers who "controlled" the region even in the remotest sense until after the Oregon Treaty, and the Spanish never penetrated the Interior at all, esp. of Oregon (except for potential exploration in search of Cibola from much earlier; no "control" at all;anybody who went in that country was lucky to get out alive, whether travelling with force of arms or not. It took the Americans a good thirty-fourty years to "pacify" the region once their sovereignty over it was established by the Oregon Treaty.Skookum1 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry; hit "minor edit" bymouse-mistake; that last addition was obviously not minor.Skookum1 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I already removed the comment about the map :D! I made this comment for the New Spain article, and copy pasted it here since I felt that this discussion had to be held here too ;) Onofre Bouvila 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if the French claim to have all the Louisiana when they had just created few colonies, and the United Staters claim to have all the center of the United States much before they started the expansion to the west, and the British claim to have the 23% of the world when in many parts they just had few colonies or forts, why can't we claim to have all that region? We're talking about what appears in the maps, not about "real" control. Officially, in the Western World, that was a part of Spain, wasn't it? Onofre Bouvila 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fairer to say that there were competing claims, which indeed was the case, verified by the Nootka Conventions of the 1790s, which settled the claim for Britain. That article fully describes the grounds for the competing claims. I, for one, would object to any edit that would suggest the European claims prior to the signing of the Conventions were any less than ambiguous. fishhead64 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. bobanny 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a common misunderstanding. I think I've tried to explain before, but the Nootka Conventions did not settle the claim for Britain; rather, they opened up Britain's right to a claim, in getting Spanish asurancdes others could trade in the region; Spain surrendered nothing, which is why they still had rights to sell to the US a few years later; with third convention the Spanish even stated that other powers had the right to occupy Ft San Miguel in their absence; this could have been the Russians or anyone, such were the terms. Spain did not sell out; they just opened the door and hung a "gone for tapas" sign on the porch. Nootka was a big poker game, Vancouver calling Quadra's bluff but basically only getting the Spanish to back down on their threats of war and/or on their usual claim to exclusivity. To sum up, Nootka Sound did not secure the British claim; it only gave it more standing; it did not abrogate the Spanish claim. It's not surprising that you two have this misunderstanding; it's often repeated in journalistic history and both Barman and Bowering get it wrong; I don't think Woodcock does but it's been as while, the Akriggs I think have it right as well. It's a myth, that the Spanish signed things over at Nootka Sound; what they did was sign the British in.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fairest description of the effect of the Nootka Convention was that the parties "agreed to disagree" - that is, that the Spaniards did not give up their claims (which dated to the 1490s), and recogized that the British were making claims. The effective result was that the region was open to whichever nation put forth the greater practical effort - which turned out to be Great Britain. The Nootka Convention technically left matters up in the air, with both sides retaining their claims - it did not "settle the claim for Britain." NorCalHistory 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The article depicts the English as being the first ones to settle the region, and does not give enough credit to the Spaniards. It says the Spaniards merely explored it, when it is not truth: the fact is that there were Spanish settlements in the region as early as 1789, and the article does not even mention it. A settlement is not a claim, it means real presence in the region. I don't understand why do you discredit these sources, treating them as "ambiguous". Onofre Bouvila 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's denying a Spanish presence, nor do I believe the article says Spaniards did nothing but explore the area (obviously not everything is going to fit, which doesn't mean it didn't happen). I'd suggest that you change it how you see fit and if there's any further disagreement, this discussion would at least be more focused. It seems to me that it's a question of proportion and emphasis rather than the "truth." Sovereignty isn't the same thing as physical settlements, and we could debate the differences until the cows come home without something more concrete about what should be in the article. bobanny 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have substantially reformed the article. Added several stuff. By the way, check this British_Columbia#History. The "section" from the main article British Columbia is bigger than this page. This page should take a lot of content from that section. Onofre Bouvila 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I think the Geography of British Columbia vs BC/Geography section, too. I remember with the History section we found oruselves expanding the BC/History section ratehr than teh page proper; partly because we were having trouble deciding what was important.....I think the intent was that at some point we were going to move/shift the expanded narratives as developed on BC#History over to this article, and the then-short form in this article become the section content on the other page. We all seem to have got caught up in other projecgt,s plus the plethora of tangents expanding the history section opened up overall.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quadra or Perez?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section "Early European Explorations (1513-1788)" says that the first documented voyage to British Columbia was that of Quadra, in 1775, then goes on to describe the voyage of Juan José Pérez Hernández... in 1774! The article's intro also says Perez's was first documented. The statement about Quadra seems to be wrong, or am I missing something? Pfly (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A problem of th wording and probably succressive edits confusing things; the distinction is that Quadra made landfall, Perez only a sighting and I think ship-to-canoe contact.Skookum1 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)