Talk:History of British Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

British Columbia Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

1 Corrections
2 Indebtedness of Colony/Colonies
3 Twentieth Century
4 List of Topics
5 BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum
6 Nootka Conventions
7 New Template

[edit] Corrections

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)

[edit] Indebtedness of Colony/Colonies

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)

[edit] Twentieth Century

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)

[edit] List of Topics

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)

[edit] BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

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)

[edit] Nootka Conventions

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)

[edit] New Template

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

v • d • e History of the Provinces and territories of Canada
Federal:	History of Canada
Provinces:	British Columbia • Alberta • Saskatchewan • Manitoba • Ontario • Quebec New Brunswick • Nova Scotia • Prince Edward Island • Newfoundland and Labrador
Territories:	Yukon • Northwest Territories • Nunavut