Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Statements by Yee vs. statements made in more scholarly sources

The best way to deal with content disputes is to stay on topic and on target. I have written Wikipedia articles on books, and as part of doing so I've looked at book reviews. While Saltwater City: An Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver counts as a Wikipedia reliable source, reviewers made it clear that it's not a scholarly book and one believed it was never intended as such. Some listed other more scholarly works.

A Wikipedian believes that these statements by Yee in Chapter 1 (Before Saltwater: From Old World to New) are wrong:

  • Yee p. 10: "The Chinese had a unique strategy: they reworked sites that whites had abandoned. One reason for this was that used claims were easier and sometimes cheaper to acquire than new ones. Another was the reception that the Chinese met in the New World. In California, they had been beaten, robbed, and kicked off their claims by hostile whites, and British Columbia was not free from such incidents. At Hope, a mob of white miners tried to stop Chinese steamer passengers from disembarking and threatened them with violence.4 In the Cayoosh region, whites shot two Chinese in a dispute over a claim.5 At Forks City, whites threatened to drive out the Chinese.6 Not surprisingly, the Chinese kept a safe distance from the frenzied first-strike areas of the gold rush." (the footnotes in the Google Books page are blurry but I counted from "1" (the first footnote) so this should give the proper citations).

The footnotes appear on p. 240:

4 John David Adams, "The Rise and Maturation of an Effective Anti-Chinese Argument in British Columbia, 1858-1879" (B.A. Honours paper. University of British Columbia, 1972), 22. (Note: See Google Books entry) - See search page #1 for more visible text of the John David Adams citation)
5 Robert S. Wynne, “Reaction to the Chinese in the Pacific Northwest Coast and B.C., 1858–1910” (PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1964), 125. (See search page #2 for more readable text of the citation)
6 Adams, "The Rise and Maturation," 24. (See search page)

The way to challenge them: Find information that directly gives a different reason/directly contradicts what Yee has to say. That means checking out the other books: In the Sea of Sterile Mountains, A White Man's Province. From China to Canada, and/or Chinatowns: Towns Within Cities in Canada. Get the exact page cites of the reasons/factors. Another possibility: If all of the other sources do not mention the "strategy" at all, it may be best not to mention the strategy. The violence claims are footnoted so to counter Yee's conclusion you will need specific conclusions to the contrary.

NOTE: I have limited access to In the Sea of Sterile Mountains so I can check the photos of the pages to see if they talk about this. I can go back to the library and take more photos if I find that I do not have the necessary pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"more scholarly sources" yes no doubt, and all focussing on particular events to make things sound completely bad....if you were familiar with all BC sources about these events you'd also get the governor's and his officials' responses; POV sources like t he ones you prefer are full of conflated material and absent of balance. The prejudices of those quotes/cites of yours are obvious to people who've read the rest of the history/sources about the colony/province. They are propagandists and are not interested in telling a fair account; and avoid mention of anything that doesn't underscore "white men bad and mean and violent, Chinese did nothing but suffer at their hands".

I'm going to bed but dread what further barrage of allegation and POVism I will wake up to; and think that you should learn the word humility and stop being such a confrontational, disruptive and relentless control freak on this article; I don't OWN the topic, but I know thet material and the range of related wikipedia coverage and titles; but you definitely are not just trying to OWN it b ut to be "the boss of me" ; you are not and never will be, not with a closed, rule-governed/ordering mind like you are displaying here tonight. AGAIN, as so often before.Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And the value judgments on reviews, and their various analities about format or sources and their own POV, and writing articles about reviews rehashing same, are not sources and ultimately are no more relevant to historical fact than are op-ed pages and blogs; and in policy it says "the interests of the general readership should be given more weight than that of specialists." Especially when those "specialists" are so at odds with the facts and a sea of established historical data, as Mike Kennedy pointed out in that discussion elsewhere about claims the Chinese were afraid to approach the goldfields, rather than be endorsed and supported and protected by governor, justices, military and constables and officials as indeed they were; but "scholarly" sources don]t like to mention that when they're thumping the wardrums against "whites" as if all were meant, and not e.g. only Americans from California for a certain, single event's as mentioned; that was not a typical and somewhat unique; but it is being used to advance a negative generalization about all "whites". Cheap and tawdry ideological propaganda- that's my review of that whole school of thought; which is the only one you want to read adn pretend like it's superior to all other kinds of sources; it's not, and the result is a POV screed tainted by ethnic prejudice and bad facts ... and in your case, endless and relentless argument...;which I gather you enjoy more than actually reading sources and writing good content with fair language, NPOV ... that takes an open mind, something not in your choice of sources and very obviously not also withing you. It's 3:22 am, I can't believe you have yet AGAIN launched yet more war and BLUDGEON-edits with. You are not interested in collaboration, constructive discussions and "real" consensus; you want control and domination and authority; and show no signs of changing. OR LEARNING instead of lecturing.Skookum1 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Contents of Morton and verification of any statements

Now that I am able to do this, I checked the Texshare listings and discovered a copy of In the Sea of Sterile Mountains at Rice University. Unfortunately I am not able to check it out. Fortunately I can access it during library hours. I photographed several pages. I have:

  • The chapter list
  • Portions of the index
  • Select pages
Chapter list

Chapters:

  • Prologue - viii
  • Introduction - x
  • Chapter I 1858-1871 - 1
  • Chapter II 1871-1880 - 31
  • Chapter III 1880-1883 - 79
  • Chapter IV 1883-1886 - 106
  • Chapter V 1886-1887 - 143
  • Chapter VI 1887-1890 - 154
  • Chapter VII 1890-1898 - 165
  • Chapter VIII 1899-1908 - 185
  • Chapter IX 1909-1923 - 214
  • Chapter X 1923 to the present 242
  • Chronology 259
  • Sources 269
  • Index 271

I did check the index and found the pages referring to "Indians" - These pages refers to "Indians" - 8, 9, 69, 72, 130, 194, 201, 203, 225. I photographed these pages for personal use (so I can refer to them even when I don't have a physical copy of the book). Unfortunately some scans are blurry but I can go back on a weekday and re-photograph any pages that I can't read... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not find a specific statement in the book that stated that the First Nations ("Indians") had hostility against the Chinese. I did find one that said this about the Japanese.

  • p. 194: "It was the fishermen who complained most bitterly about the Japanese, who held 1,759 licences compared with 1,142 for whites. Even the native Indians were bitter towards the Japanese; there would be bloodshed if any more appeared, they said."

As for the question of whites' beliefs regarding the economics... The beginning of page 194 stated:

  • "With two exceptions, the evidence was all very much against the Oriental, though it was by no means as viciuous as in the first commission. The main complaint was that the Oriental worked for lower wages and therefore deprived whites of a livelihood. Both the canners and lumber men said they could not compete against Americans without them. It was the fishermen[...]"

I need to rephotograph p. 130. From the photos I have...

  • "Indeed, a strange mixture of events was occurring in the country at this time. British Columbians were frantically adopting anti-Oriental legislation, yet treating the Chinese, at worst, with tolerance. The Dominion government was disallowing British Columbia's anti-Oriental legislation, yet passing its own to disenfranchise the "Mongolian or Chinese"." (I need to check if the exact words are as printed!) **Edit: Got better photo! Confirmed!**

I also need to check if Oppenheimer is in the index. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you've actually found a copy to read, don't just search for terms you want to mandate/use, but read it carefully and find the very specific passages about why British Columbians wanted settler-workers from the British Isles and their reasons for viewing Chinese labour as not contributing to the colonial/provincial tax-base and economies. And find the bit about Chinese labour contractors not paying the 2000 who were stranded, starving, in Spences Bridge, until rescued by "white" British Columbians in the Lower Mainland; and find Camp 23, it's in there too. Take off your POV goggles while reading it and you may actually, um, apologize for your massive AGF against me on the OR board and here, and learn somethings you don't know and actually admit that your preferred range of academic sources have a large number of their "facts" and allegations/generalizations completely wrong and/or off-base.
In the Vancouver election in question, Oppenheimer was an "old Cariboo hand" like many other from-BC Gastownites, while the other candidate was from a "Canadian" faction who were very anti-Chinese (veterans of the goldfields had respect for the Chinese commercial elite and knew them all personally); the same "Canadian" element (that term meant only Ontarians and Anglo-Quebeckers in those times, Maritimers were a separate element, as were Brits who'd lived in California) were behind teh anti-Chinese violence in 1885, and again in 1907; that's in a lot of BC histories in one form or another; Alan Morley's Vancouver: From Milltown to Metropolis has a passage, and it's also in Early Vancouver by Maj. JS Skit Mathews, who was city archivist and recorded accounts of the early history and society of the city from its earliest times; Morton focuses, yes, on the politics of the British power and media elites; but has details of their views/statements and specifics of figures that are not to be found in the academic/politicized sources you have focused on, other than in negative and inaccurate generalizations.

You'll also find that Ottawa's escalation of the Head Tax was as a result of pressure from the Imperial Chinese, then Nationalist Chinese, governments on London and was to do with maintaining good relations with China for trade purposes.

And btw on a more current issue, the China-FIPA treaty and the Chinese insistence on temporary foreign workers working at their pay rates and labour regs vs Canadian citizens paid at Canadian rates and standards is a hot-button issue and much viewed askance in Canada; "we" just finished apologizing for the 1/3 pay scale that Chinese railway workers were paid, via contracts by Chinese labour contractors and not imposed or wanted by BC or BC citizens.....and now China wants to do the same again. That doesn't have to do with Chinese Canadians but with Chinese investment in Canada which is a somewhat separate topic; I don't know what statements may have been made by SUCCESS or the CCNC about it, but echoes of the positions of colonial/early provincial British Columbian "perceptions" (realities) very, very much; and not in flattering ways.

There may even be a passage about Hunter Jack in that book, I've forgotten all that's in it..there's so much. It was a lot more in it than any of the overly-incestuous but oh-so-footnoted academic sources you have asserted as if somehow superior to books like Morton's; stop cherry-picking about words you want to dispute and become familiar with the history and the many sources that your academic-cynic range of sources seem to never have read, nor I venture would even want to, as it would make them look bad (which they do, IMHO).Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

re "I did not find a specific statement in the book that stated that the First Nations ("Indians") had hostility against the Chinese. I did find one that said this about the Japanese." I NEVER said that that book had material about that in it; I mentioned First Nations as individuals e.g. Hunter Jack; material like that is on Short Portage to Lillooet by Irene Edwards, The Great Years: Gold Mining in the Bridge River Valley by Lewis Green, and other local histories; Green you may actually find in a mining department library at a Texas University, it was published in 2000 and has more detail on him (he was kukpi7, "chief" as mistranslated, of the communities that are today the Nequatque and Seton Lake Indian Bands; Edwards contains a passage, from some early diarist, about Indians driving Chinese off salmon-spawning stream beds. You are looking for "official policy" but there was no such thing at the time, otehr than personal policies of individual natives, chiefs or otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"Take off your POV goggles while reading it and you may actually, um, apologize for your massive AGF against me on the OR board and here," - I don't think that's fair. The burden of proof on a person trying to make a claim/add content lies on the person making the claim. Right now I am essentially doing work you were supposed to have done. Since you don't have access to the book and haven't had access to the book in a long time, you should make any attempt to re-obtain this book. It also helps to stay on-target. The point regarding whether one should say British Columbian "whites" felt this way and how First Nations felt are the ones that are being disputed. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On these subjects:

  • David Oppenheimer: In the index on pages: 15, 16, 22, 75, 76, 80, 98, 125, 146-148, 158, 160. I'll re-read the pages but I don't think they mention his supporters preventing Chinese people from voting
  • Camp 37 is mentioned on page 101

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

sources in nosracines.ca/ourroots.ca that have search terms for "Chinese"

Since my regular opponent is too busy writing diatribes against me and not using that valuable time to actually research or read sources I point to, I've taken the time this morning (too much given the laziness of the other party, and the amount of time of mine he takes up with his pages-long NPAs/AGFs about me, though only had time for things found on the first three pages of their listings for British Columbia and may give more time to this later; but he's the one in need of education on the subject and should be reading these....not massing attacks against me as he has taken so much time doing. I don't have time to title-cite or page-name all these but if you use the search window at right and search "Chinese" on each link, and in some cases set it at more than 10 results, you'll find lots. I didn't try "China" or "Chinaman" as search terms: [1] this one is very interesting, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

And that's just the first three pages of nosracines' BC listings. Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and LEARN SOMETHING instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed and prejudiced.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

These would be great for Wikisource. I am looking through some of these but I wonder which ones have specific encyclopedic information which would help this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Living Landscapes and RBCM website results

so much out there he's not even bothering to try and find; here's more:

  • a search for "Chinese" on Living Landscapes which I can't compile as a search here as the resulting URL is blacklisted; but use that URL and use their "search" window for "Chinese" and there's lots of results. Why Living Landscapes has a numeric URL only I don't know; many googlesearches for its content page go to the main RBCM site, even though teh pages and the site are still on 142.36.5.21. Similarly I can't use the search function on the RBCM site here, as it contains a '?' which isn't allowed. But these are among the places out there that he's ignoring and apparently very vociferously doesn't want to read or acknowledge.

Passages like this:

  • "Initially, unlike Californians, British Columbians were tolerant of the Chinese. Few whites perceived the Chinese as a threat to their wellbeing; some regarded them as useful or valuable members of the communities who shared the goal of making money, often providing useful services such as restaurants, laundries, and fresh vegetables and whose presence might lead to the growth of a profitable trans-Pacific trade.9 The Chinese enjoyed equal protection before the law." from the RBCM itself are clearly at odds with the negative and biased/simplistic ethno-historian condemnations of BC and British Columbians, but he posts things from his ehtno-history readings unquestioningly and without any knowledge ofg the field at start; yet behaves like a general commanding troops or a schoolmarm who's determined to take charge of the kid who won't shut up in class. [14], [15], [16] [17] [18] [19]TransPacific Research Guide, [20] are only some of what's on the RBCM site.

He should be reading these cites instead of writing treatises on "Skookum 1 bad", "Skookum1 is a liar" which is the effective gist of his posts on so many pages beyond count, including the current OR discussion. I'm not a liar, I don't make things up, and I know where to look; he should be learning from me and asking my help and not waging procedural war against me or talking down to me about anything. I'm tired of the bullshit, but because of the misrepresentations rife in ethno-history, this is my history too, and seeing someone with an obvious ethnic axe-grinding agenda who's rejecting the history and views of other people than "his own" when he doesn't know the sources, doesn't know the province, and doesn't respect other Wikipedians who do is NOXIOUS.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Any statements found to dispute a source need to directly contradict the exact disputed statement. The specific issues outlined in the previous posts included replacing of "Whites" even though the sources intentionally used "Whites" and pointed out that these were attitudes held in Whites, and the Oppenheimer thing. I agree that it is good to get sources that clarify matters and have different points of view. However it's important to keep sources straight and ensure that a statement is directly supported by the source. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the page from the Museum on the Chinese: http://142.36.5.21/thomp-ok/ethnic-agri/chinese.html - "The influx of Chinese specifically, and of Orientals generally, stirred xenophobic fears in the mostly white population of B.C. Roy (1981, p. 657) argued that this hostility was rooted in a fear of Asian economic dominance: Although many British Columbians' attitudes can be explained in terms of social psychology, and many fears were grossly exaggerated even to the point of irrationality, Asians provided sufficient, effective competition in the fishing grounds, in the fields, in the marketplace, in the classroom and on the battlefield to warrant deep fears about the ability of white British Columbians to maintain their dominant position in the province."

The museum cites Patricia Roy here.

Also on the same page: "Fraser also noted that a similar resolution was passed in Oliver in order to keep the district white and that it was popularly acclaimed."

Even in this one you supplied, anti-Chinese sentiment among Whites is emphasized. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Metrotown et al

RE this bit of apples and orange logic edit-comment which has to do not with Paris being capital of France but with Metrotown, Golden Village and certain malls around Coquitlam being foci of the GVRD's commercial and residential Chinese Canadian economy and society, has it occurred to you to consult those articles for sources before you demand a cite and lay down a pompous condemnation for it being included without a ref. If you knew Vancouver before you started trying to take over major topics about it that would have helped a LOT. And that includes reading other Vancouver-area articles and find out what's used and what sources there are and what's in them and the terms used...and simple facts like Golden Village being distinctly Chinese and Metrotown being one of the main pan-Asian nodes in the Lower Mainland; in fact a lot of South Burnaby is; but... oh never mind, it's 2:21 am here and what you are doing on the article right now is clearly disruptive and WP:BlUDGEONING and has too many SYNTH allegations/claims in your edit comments to take on all at once; I'm not the one with OWN problems about this article, that's very clear; you are on the counterattack; I thought earlier re the discussion about 'Anglophone schools' on my talkpage, where you seemed to actually concede that you were wrong and were ready to use what actual Canadian editors are telling you and we might be getting somewhere; but this is all too much and constitutes a POV and hostile barrage of distortions and projections and is clearly the battlefield behaviour that was wrongly alleged against me instead of you.

You are no.34 on the total-edits global list but I'm starting to think it's because of lengthy board wars and cite/template barrages like this, and not actually constructive writing. It's clearly confrontational tonight, given its launch in the wake of the discussion on my talkpage, and as illogical and SYNTH and "reaching" as well as "controlling" as ever; yes "we" had a discussion about this on the OR board...the conversation you were having with yourself, expounding on your theories and assertions, while I was off gathering sources and defending myself from insult and a campaign to block me because of YOUR ongoing quarrelsomeess and not-slight AGF towards me.

You are building a POV fork vs other Vancouver history/society/community articles here; not incidentally because you very clearly haven't read any of the rest of them, or undertaken to read up on before even thinking of writing massive articles about a subject you are only just starting to learn about....and are only interested in "scholarly sources" as superior to others....they are not....and neither are you. @Moonriddengirl:, I'm not the one who needs a topic ban here, nowhere close; this conduct tonight is bizarre but I've been seeing it for months; @Callanecc: you said I should work in other areas where I do not encounter people who I find difficult to deal with; but this about a topic area that someone has virtually invaded and now presumes to own and dominate and be extremely and relentlessly bullying and control-freaking about while being only a newbie on the subject,ano on basic matters of BC and Vancouver history and society and geography; There are too many partronizing comments in today's (tonight's for me) onslaught of edits. This needs addressing, and criticizing me instead of reigning him in and end his "takeover" of BC history in his own image, accroding to his own curious and often bizarre SYNTH and massive board-wars and endless, endless, endless. AGF..... Skookum1 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

An article focused on Vancouver cannot be a POV fork because there is no POV and several sources clearly limit it to the Vancouver area and say so explicitly. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


You are an essayist with a fetish for format expounding on a vast subject that you have extremely little genuine grasp of .... and a very obvious disdain for anything and anyone else but your wayh of doing thigns, and thte particular narrow taste that you have re sources.... . What's keeping me from participating as I would like to is your insistence on doing things only your way, using only your terms on use of what should and must only be used, to maintain a storyline, and now reassert your geographic POV fork agenda that drives your world-spanning empire of "ethnicity by city" articles, to the exclusion of other points of view using claims and demands about sources....such that myself I have no time, nor ability, to "contribute to the discussion as I would like to". Including getting at all those linked sources I've pointed yhou at while you rail and rail and rail and rail at me...for not owning books which you do not own yourself and quite obviously have no intention of ever doing so, but ordering me to go buy them "ASAP"..... that's so rankly AGAINST GOOD FAITH that it's completely bizarre that you are still going at it, now patronizing to me, indicating that I should not participate in monitoring this very important topic in British Columbia history and society and leave it to some WP:Brat in a bubble in Texas.

You are a bully and, yes, that's an old propaganda tactic, and you are attacking the messenger so as to never have to admit to hear the message he bears; and then proceed to delete all that doesn't have to do with your own supreme rule of this topic....so much like the First Qin Emperor's destruction of all history him to establish his supremacy that 'ironic' is not quite the right word.....ethno-political COI exactly of your kind has been foisted and rejected before.....

And you are impertinent to be so arduously obstructionist and demanding. I've pointed out topics for you to investigate, sources for you to find including linking them, and now you demand I go buy books I owned and know and remember well and if I don't then I should bow out of the discussion. You need more than a good WP:TROUTing, that's for sure.

Your OWNership behaviour with your WP:WOE tactics - walls of edit so rapid in their succession and so en masse that it has given me pause to wonder if you're a bot - is now patronizing and condescending and bizarre as to tell me if I don't have the books I've read all my life (including several important works I have linked on line ...and/or are accepted without quarrel on dozens and dozens of other Wikipedia pages and talkpages for a very long time....before you came up, and sought ways to keep me out of your takeover of the self-appointed position of editor-in-chief on this little self-assignment of yours. Your disrespect for me is vulgar in its pomposity, your wheedling on claims of support from the page-cite query on that recent board either clueless or dishonest; your ongoing barrage of edits and "go get me this or else" b.s means to me that No. 34, as my nickname for you now is, needs to be given a very long topic ban and re-education in collaboration with non-OCD editors and an END to rule-mongering as you have been doing. And I'm thinking even a CHECKUSER investigation to see if you really are one person, and if you are even in Texas. I've seen your types before, hiding behind regulations and procedure to bulldoze opposition and recognize it all too well.

I'm upping that demand for 500 USD and a 40-pounder of scotch 'ASAP'. I want you to buy those books, read them, and read all those links and sources I pointed you at....and shut up until you're finished. It's you that's uninformed here, and also you who are behaving like a wiki-gestapo determined to persecute an experienced editor to the point he leaves in frustration...or failing that now saying that I shouldn't be here if I don't still have the books. I did and you never have. I know that's in them, your claims I can't cite what's in them because I don;'t still out them is hilariously wrong....and just more bullshit to control what's in the article and build/write it yourself only.

Go buy those books "ASAP". Until you have them in your hands you shouldn't be commenting on them at all nor telling someone who has read them to either buy them or go away. It's YOU who doesn't have them and and hasn't read them, not me. That's probably one of the most bizarre projections I've ever seen on Wikipedia, or anywhere. You are building a wall of regulations to keep your ignorance intact. The Great Wall of WhisperToMe. Now staking out part of Canada in Wikispace, and mandating what must be and what must be deleted that offends you because it's not page-cited or just, really, because you don't want to admit to what is in those books that I know so very, very, very well. A man does not have to physically own a book to know what's in it; if he knows it well it's in his heart...and not page-numbered. You haven't owned it at all, and don't want to read it or listen to anybody who has, and make extraneous demands like only a military or a machine-governed mind can demand of others... in fact, a sweatshop environment with punitive work loads and cheap quality end results; your article writing style is atrocious; hard to believe you're a first-language speaker of English at times...but apparently all they teach in university now is page-citing and formatting and style... not an open mind ready to learn, and ready to accept what others have to say, but to argue and argue andwin the debate...or win Wikipedia perhaps, as if it were a game. You must be aspiring to be No. 34 on the top 400 list huh?

I'm going to bed at last, and realize that the maxim on my userpage added last night applies "never argue about someone committed to misunderstanding you" so I will not argue with your condescending crap but I sure as hell will do something about you. And don't call that a threat, you are too dense to realize what I mean..... Your hostility towards me and your rule-master game is not conducive t o participatory and collaborative editing by regular people, the ones you claim to speak for as to why they need page-cites.... nobody should have to put up with the workload you create-then-demand....especially for nothing in return but disrespect and condescension. This is not over. Not by a long shot. But I'm done with you; you haev nothing relevant to say, only more bossiness and b.s. and rule-crazed blathering to swart discussion and block topics and events from your revisionist version of history as you have commissioned yhousrelf to present it, like a job....yes, indeed, like a job......yes, indeed.

Don't forget that 500 bucks and the bottle of scotch "ASAP", and

You do realize I'm turning your own words back at you, right? AGAIN?.

WP:BLUDGEONing of me, and of this talkpage, is going to end. And not because it's me who's left, or because you persist in battlefielding and procedural tactics results in getting me blocked or banned or topic-banned. What I've experienced here raises very serious questions about your behaviour throughout all your wiki-behaviour...and the very POVized, over-academicized, poorly written but oh-so-cited theses upon theses in your global "ethnicity by series" empire. Those sources don't require the topic be limited to Vancouver, by the way. 'ONLY YOU DO. And your sources aren't the whole world of sources there are yet for you to read.....that's only your claim about those sources mandating that, and that is SYNTH and OR and even that is only a cover, to me, for your campaign to ethno-POVize this topic and destroy all opposition to you by a pounding hammer of relentless workloads and demands; that it all really one big propaganda assignment, self-assigned or otherwise.....the so-called wikipedia community may yet wake up to you and what you are up to and wonder who you are and why you have been on the rampage here to dominate this subject without every knowing anything about it before a few months ago; but the wikipedia "community" and its passive and or reticent adminship/bureaucracy is not the real world either.

You won't get that, but others will. I have respect and support about my work in Wikipedia, and not just from the sample of those who gave me barnstars on my userpage. Far beyond that. Far beyond......

Now eat your soup and call your mother and ask her about older men and why you should respect themn for their knowledge. Do it ASAP, and don't forget to do the homework assignment I gave you that's overdue, either...read all the sources I've provided while hyou demand pagecites for ones you haven't read and don't come back until you have and are reaedy to be a civilized person and not a sweatshop master. And yes, no accident t hat I'm using that paradigm, because t hat's exactly the nature of your behaviour here.

And I will investigate how much time you spend on Wikipedia, what the frequency of your posts are, as yhou are so rapid you may bev a bot, or a team, and find a way to find out about your edit summary count to figure out how much of being No. 34 is all lengthy orations and demands and content/cite/source warring like yhou have conducted here... and are now escalating to the max. Perhaps you want to kill me with stress, too, that's not an unknown propagandist tactic, either. I'm from the real world; you live behind a wall of quasi-intellectualism and pseudo-scholarly sophistry. WP:THE FIFTH PILLAR defies all that you are; it will fall on you, with a resounding thud.Skookum1 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually have taken the time to go through quite a few of your internal notes and sources and they are shaping up this article. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike Kennedy re Chinese placer mines on the Fraser

I've mentioned this before, but it got buried in the demands for page-cites and the OR-board-war challenging all the events and issues I raised here: The Distribution and Toponymy of 19th Century Placer Mining Along Fraser River, British Columbia, Andrew David Nelson, Michael Kennedy, BC Studies no. 172 Winter 2011/2012, pp. 105-125. There used to a copy copy of it online, I haven't been able to find it, though may yet (BC Studies may have had it online, but now you have to buy the issue online or otherwise from their site). I did find, though with an annoying banner at the bottom of a scribd page Fraser River Gold Mines and Their Place Names. Andrew D. Nelson and Michael Kennedy also published originally in BC Studies....hm it's also only a preview though they offer a free month if you sign up.

Oh, just going through the tabs open after googling, turns out the photo gallery of placer mining sites is was on line at BC Studies re the BC Studies no. 160 Winter 2008/2009 issue at this link which is now "file not found".

I don't think Mike will mind me quoting this passage from correspondence with him about this matter, which your preferred source falsely claims re Chinese being afraid of white miners (without ever mentioning the Governor's assertions of British law vs American goldfield behaviour at Rock Creek, Wild Horse Creek, Yale and elsewhere as to the Chinese, and also natives, having equal rights to stake and mine), response to an email from me "re a talkpage exchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skookum1#Chinese_immigration on 11/04/06 (there are 26 archives of my talkpage so I'm not going to take the time to search them...but that date should be I guess maybe within the first half-dozen somewhere):

Me: spun off an inline comment about why this was or wasn't important (the natives chasing Chinese out of the streambeds, and the Chinese working hydraulic claims just as thoroughly if not moreso than anyone else). ":

Mike Kennedy:hi Mike...actually was on the river yesterday afternoon walking along the terraces above 'James' Bar (about 10 miles south of here on the west side) and had a long rambling conversation with my wife and the dogs about much of what you say here. How much genuine hydraulic mining went on is really debatable-I've been over the ground in detail and conclude that most of it was 'ground sluicing'.Evidence for hydraulic mining is quite clear where it exists-high-head ditches, deep scarps, foundations for head boxes, surface finds of metal artifacts relating to pipe etc....very few sites have this kind of evidence between Lytton and French Bar canyon.

Mike Kennedy:Also be very clear that the archival evidence supports the case that the Chinese almost completely controlled that Fraser placer industry after 1859/61 and not dependent on white 'sufferance'!! This was not, as you point out, California despite unrelenting pc efforts to make it so!!! They can make up all the stories they wish but the data won't support it!!!

The exchange was due to an older version of Chinese immigration to Canada which was mostly a cribbing of generalizations of California goldfields matters onto Canada; and the very wrong information on CCNC and similar sites at the time also mirrored from American sources and apparently Chinese folk-history e.g. "a Chinese dead for each foot of the Fraser Canyon" (since amended on their sites and connected sites like Digital Collections, and on the Heritage Minutes TV commercials, to "for every MILE of the Fraser Canyon" (60 to 120 miles depending on whether you count it from Yale to Lytton or Yale to Ashcroft, which is actually in the Thompson Canyon). There were, please note, at least that many non-Chinese who died during railway construction (including that foreman butchered by Chinese workers at Camp 23 as you'll find out about in Morton).

Re placer mining, Irene Harris' Halfway to the Golfields: A History of Lillooet talks about several Chinese miners/entrepreneurs/ranchers, none of them mentioned in the sketchy and inaccurate academic-source accounts you have been so credulous about; the story of Ah Key, who built a 20-mile-plus log flume from Fountain Valley to the benchlands opposite Lillooet where Fort Berens Winery is now for mining and farm-irrigation purposes; it cost as I recall $40,000 at the time, multiply that by 50 for an equivalent figure in today's dollars. Chinese created and ran a very successful market gardening economy for produce there (the Lillooet area), and engaged Japanese relocatees to work for them during the Second World War despite the hostilities between their peoples overseas. Ah Key left Lillooet on a raft, she recounts, calmly smoking his pipe while setting off down the dangerous river with his fortune on board, and was widely respected locally; in Morton and other histories you will read about a provincial election in the Lillooet (electoral district) in the 1870s (1874 I think) where the candidates recruited the town's wealthy Chinese to vote even though by provincial law they weren't supposed to; money talks, basically

None of this "fits" with the biased and cynical accounts of early BC history found in the academic sources that go on and on about discrimination and mistreatment by "whites" and government that they so love to obsess upon; and distort without ever, it seems, talking about or admitting to the vast wealth in gold, lands and merchandising that dominated dozens of areas and towns in the BC Interior.

This article in The Hook, a blog attache to The Tyee] 'zine, mentions Bill Chu's "discovery" of two mining sites on the Fraser from the First Nations people he's befriended in his campaign to explore racism in early BC; he doesn't seem to ever have asked any "settler" people for their input even though they could point out, Mike Kennedy especially, to hundreds of places on the Fraser that were Chinese owned or worked; he didn't "discover" anything that Mike and others already knew about; he says:

“These discoveries help reveal our history hidden in the Fraser Canyon. The myth we all came to work on the railroad and then prospered is exploded. We need to be reflected in Canadian history. So far Chinese Canadian history hasn’t been properly exposed,” said Chu.

"Hidden", nothing, all such sites are under our feet and as well known to non-native locals as to natives. Cole Harris tactfully responds:

These are not, strictly speaking, new discoveries, although they touch on a huge and fascinating area of study, important for understanding Chinese settlement in BC. Most of these placer mining projects were done by Chinese workers. Mike Kennedy in Lillooet has done some spectacular mapping of these sites and will be publishing the results in December in BC Studies,"

So I suggest you have a lot of reading to do, far beyond Morton and that you should stop cherrypicking what's in sources like Morton to advance your nitpicking on terminology and your justifications for wanting to use certain terms that are no longer acceptable; the modern norm, which I don't personally like myself, for "white" is "European Canadian" (that phrase in my upbringing years meant "somebody from Europe who had become a naturalized Canadian and was not use for British emigres or American or Australian etc immigrants).

And you should apologize to me, after you've read Morton and learned all that I told you was true, and not made-up, for your exhaustive board-warring against me, and for the viciousness of the ANI against me that my resistant to your NPA/AGF about me took up so much time and goodwill, while work on this article was foregone; at least now you have Morton, and a lot of page-cites to dig out; and direct passages and full bios on certain individuals worth expanding their articles with; though whether your additions to Arthur Bunster and Noah Shakespeare and other articles, if you undertake them, will be NPOV or not remains to be seen.Skookum1 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_2#Chinese_immigration? I don't see any exchanges with Mike Kennedy. Is his information published? How does he know this information? Where is he getting it from? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I should add that Mike Kennedy and I know each other personally, partly through our mutual interest in the history and geography of the Lillooet area, and also through mutual friends; he was a schoolteacher in Lillooet as was a friend of mine when I worked there in 1979 for the highways department; Mike is now elderly and hasn't responded to recent emails but I know he's "out in the country" south of Lillooet (at Texas Creek, British Columbia, about 20km S of Lillooet); but I am seeking to recruirt other locals in Lillooet, Yale, the Cariboo and other regions with historical interests to start building their local histories so that they aren't" colonized by academic prejudices" as they so sadly have been in recent decades.
Bill Chu someone contacted me on FB about, with the suggestion I make contact with him, which I certainly will, and encourage him to talk to more people in teh area than the First Nations people he seems to have been only talking to; including the Jim family of Lillooet, who remain of Lillooet's once-large and prosperous Chinese population; they are now intermarried with natives, whites and Japanese Canadian families and others; one native elder I know of there, I'm sure she's long-dead, was 1/16 of nearly everything, from Norwegian to Chinese to Polish to Japanese and more; talking about race in BC history is counterproductive; it was an is a a society and history of individuals drawn from many backgrounds, often identifying with them all; it's academics and politicians who have sought to compartmentalize us into groups, and an appreciation of the true history and culture of the place is not available in modern academic curriculums as a result; maybe I can collaborate with Bill Chu to correct that very big problem; I may yet write a paper on the cynicism and negativity and paucity of relevant/accurate sourcing in modern-era BC historiography for publication; you may yet find yourself citing me. I know others will, and I don't mean Wikipedians.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly this length Ministry of Mines PDF on mineral exploration, which cites Kennedy's work, does not have a single mention of "Chinese" in it; but they also don't mention "Germans" or "Italians" or other ethno-groups; this is because, I'm sure, it's now politically inappropriate in government publications to make such breakdowns by race/ethnicity when industry and investment are the subject. Similarly this review of a recent book that also uses Mike's works as a source also does not mention Chinese though I'm sure the book does (one of the authors is a CBC Radio host in Vancouver who consulted me on Lillooet history and who I also know "personally" on FB for quite a long time now); they actually he's used me as a source respect me and what I have to say about BC history... you should learn to also.Skookum1 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The mining page can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090311063814/http://www.bcstudies.com/mining.php WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, this Introduction by Cole Harris to the [http://www.bcstudies.com/?q=issues/item/bc-studies-no-160-winter-20082009 edition of BC Studies he edited makes no mention of Chinese...or whites. But he does say:
The coming of outsiders to British Columbia was late and abrupt: along the middle

Fraser a few fur trade decades, then a gold rush. Miners brought one overriding objective, the attainment of which rendered Native peoples and nature expendable. No miner fretted about the ecological effects of the millions of tons of overburden sluiced into the Fraser River. There was no other means of disposal: the river was accommodating, and that was that. The ranchers’ use of arsenic embodied essentially the same attitude. For all the individual exceptions, there has been arrogance in the BC air, both with respect to Native peoples and to nature. An immigrant society has imposed itself at a time when the technological and administrative capacity to accomplish change has been enormous

And his omission of "white" before "immigrants" is very deliberate; as miners and ranchers and other outsiders included non-whites and especially the Chinese; again no actual policy of Chinese policy towards natives, but individual indifference towards native rights and concerns and well-being by individual "settler populations" (as indigenous activists describe all those of non-native origin). Harris' Resettlement of British Columbia book also includes passages about how the Fraser Canyon ranches and farms were dominantly Chinese in the aftermath of the initial gold rush era until the building of the railway in the 1880s.
are you getting it yet that Vancouver's Chinese history is a sideshow relative to the deeper history of Chinese settlement/immgration and economic and social life in BC outside the city??Skookum1 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"are you getting it yet that Vancouver's Chinese history is a sideshow relative to the deeper history of Chinese settlement/immgration and economic and social life in BC outside the city??" What matters is the number of published sources. There are enough reliable sources to write this article.. and there are also clearly enough to write an article focused on Vancouver, something that User:TheMightyQuill had said himself (he wants to make sure this article can stand on its own legs when the excess Vancouver-related stuff is removed). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

annoyingly POV edit comment

This edit comment "Let's read https://books.google.com/books?id=TaKCUVe_92EC&pg=PA194-https://books.google.com/books?id=TaKCUVe_92EC&pg=PA195 From context you can see it's the Whites that had campaigned against the Chinese (is there evidence First Nations felt the same?))" is both patronizing and racist....and yes, there is evidence that First Nation felt the same; Chief Hunter Jack drove Chinese miners away from Marshall Creek in the 1870s, and in the 1880s there was conflict over damage to salmon spawning beds during the Cayoosh Gold Rush. Natives, for the record, got paid more than whites for work, (cite: Frances Decker Pemberton: History of a settlement) as they worked harder; the same is true of Kanakas and often also blacks.....the use of "whites" as apposite to "Chinese" is misleading but common in biased sources (which are more than numerous). "From context" you can see a lot of things, including the bias prevalent in modern-era publicatoins against "whites".Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"let's read other sources" like Marshall, Morton, the Akriggs and other things that aren't in the purview of ethnic-studies "research" (propaganda). "Let's actually learn BC history before we write about it" it is my ongoing comment to the ethno-pandering here. Repeating the biases and mistakes and distortions of so-called "reliable sources" is not NPOV, it is perpetrating lies and falsehoods.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That link is Berton, and it's a crappy source in many ways; there's lots more on the building of the railway out there, including the Morton book I keep on mentioning; Berton is known for many historical errors and conflations.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
1. "yes, there is evidence that First Nation felt the same; Chief Hunter Jack drove Chinese miners away from Marshall Creek in the 1870s, and in the 1880s there was conflict over damage to salmon spawning beds during the Cayoosh Gold Rush. " -- The solution is to go on Google Books and get the page numbers of a book that says that, and the book must tie this into general anti-Chinese sentiment (as in Chief Hunter Jack must be used as an example of anti-Chinese sentmiment). It must make a statement explicitly saying "The First Nations/Natives also had anti-Chinese sentiment".
2. As for the salary of Natives - in order to include this, the source must tie this into "anti-Chinese sentiment" (It must show that this is relevant to the discussion of the Chinese). - A cite "(cite: Frances Decker Pemberton: History of a settlement)" without a page number does not contribute anything.
3. To all readers of this talk page: any "that source is crappy" comments without any evidence presented proving its a crappy source are incredibly unhelpful. If the source is "crappy" the book reviews/reliable sources will say that it's very problematic (example: Hmong: History of a People). For example, if "Berton is known for many historical errors and conflations" then the book reviews will say that like with Hmong: History of a People.
4. I find it unhelpful to rattle off "this and this happened" without an effort from your end to find alternate sources on Google Books so I can read more about it. Morton's book is not the only one out there about the Chinese and to argue "the Natives had anti-Chinese sentiment too" it is the person making the claim who has the responsibility of proving this claim.
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"Chief Hunter Jack" Chinese on Google Books = zero text results (I see a mention of A History of British Columbia: Selected Readings with no preview).
I must emphasize: Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (I didn't add the bolding!)
Yee: p. 10. "In the Cayoosh region, whites shot two Chinese in a dispute over a claim." (that is the only result so far from a Google Books search for "Cayoosh Gold Rush Chinese")
If the anti-First Nations sentiment towards Chinese appears in newspaper articles printed in the Morton book, perhaps there may be other sources for these newspaper articles? Even so, these may be treated as "primary" sources, and it is the secondary sources that truly determine "weight". If the Morton book has analysis of First Nations-based anti-Chinese sentiment, that would be a secondary source.
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, the page number challenge you are throwing up is hostile and picayune; some pages use those same cites without page-challenges like you are obsessing over and being confrontational about, as if I'm making thing up. Details of native-Chinese interactions can be found in lots of major general histories but not, and pointedly not be design, in the raft of sino-biased modern works that gloss over this, or point to native-Chinese marriages; and in local histories like the Edwards book. "Verifiability" is there, as I do not make things up but for the last week my XHD where I have digital copies of her book and certain others is not showing up in Windows Explorer, so I can't satisfy your 'impatient demands as would be otherwise possible. As for Morton, you know full well I am in Asia and do not have access to a Canadian library; I sold that book when I left Canada in fact. My bad for not publishing a review on its years ago or you'd find yourself having to quote ME in the reviews that you have so carefully presented to try to discredit the book. Ormsby, the Akriggs, Hauka, Howay, Scholefield, M.S. Wade, Barman, Bowering aren't fully cited like the academic nazi crowd criticizes Morton for. One thing he has, once you take the time to find and read it instead of just finding catty reviews, is details of each and ever shipload coming and going, and I don't see any of that in the sino-focussed cites you have provided, rather I see a lot of glosses, cited glosses from other vague and biased sources with don't have a lot of actual details, just politicized generalizations. Page-numbered opinion vs non-footnoted immigration/shipping data without line-cites.....well, in 1974, the line-cite obsession of the "new history" crowd didn't exist yet. Demanding the past conform to the standards of the present (moral or stylistic, whichever) is not proper historiography;but all too typical of the biases and anality of the modern history "establishment"; there is value in any source, whether modern cite-methods were used. There's little in his book on native-Chinese matters...though there is the story of Camp 23 or Camp 32, something like that, near Lytton, where an attempted firing of a Chinese worker wound up seeing a mob kill a crew foreman; it's also in his book where the story of the starving 2000 at Spences Bridge is recounted, who were rescued by Vancouver citizens (among whom some may have been Chinese, but the money came from teh stodgily Anglo-British West Side of Vancouver) because their Chinese employer had abandoned them. Do I have a page cite? No. Am I making it up? No. Is is in that book? Yes. So isntead of being a picky cite-demander, who don't you have patience and stop being so AGF against me about anything I add or change; I know BC history, YOU DON'T.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre Berton's many books don't have citations, either, y'know.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Citations require page numbers because readers need to be able to verify the content. I take a lot of time hunting down page numbers on Google Books and saving snippets (even manipulating Google Books to show as much of the book as possible if it's in Snippet form) because I want to prove to my readers that my content comes from these sources and that it's an accurate reflection of them.
Books for general audiences typically don't have footnotes so the reviews won't criticize them for that. Reviews from "academic" journals acknowledge when the book isn't intended to be scholarly or when it's not "as scholarly" (I included such statements in the article Saltwater City: An Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver). Books typically are asked for citations when they are supposed to be scholarly or academic. Hmong: History of a People is criticized for lacking footnotes because it's supposed to be scholarly research.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Local histories and general histories abound with information on this subject; most are not "scholarly" or "academic" and do not bother with footnotes; often as in the case of Irene Edwards' Short Portage to Lillooet or Irene Harris' Halfway to the Goldfields: A History of Lillooet mention directly in their texts the sources that they draw their information from. But there are books on this subject that are footnoted, often extensively, as with Joanne Drake Terry's Time out Of Mind and Lewis Green's The Great Years; both of which are in Googlebooks, but without previews. Your notion that something must show up in Googlebooks searches is entirely rubbish and systemically excludes books that exist and are notable but which have not been digitally produced or have previews in Googlebooks.
As for ""Chief Hunter Jack" Chinese on Google Books = zero text results (I see a mention of A History of British Columbia: Selected Readings with no preview)., my previous comments apply; the Hunter Jack story re driving the Chinese out of his territory is in all the items used as sources on the Chief Hunter Jack page, including Green, Drake-Terry, Edwards, and Harris. That's four sources, all recounting a well-known story about this very unique individual; but you reject that story because it doesn't have page-cites or a googlebook search/preview. Scholarly research of the kind you are seeking to exclude sourcing to are often incredibly biased and a-factual in terms of "what else is out there". YOU haven't read the books you say I can't refer to either so since I have I'd say my word is 200% better than your opposition to any mention of them at all. That's exclusionism, and also contrary to "the interests of the general readership should be put before those of specialists" which is in TITLE and other policies and guidelines. Your logic is specious, your demands for page-cites not called for by guidelines despite your claims that it is, and your hostility to stories or cites which conflict with the POV and very limited, one-sided content of so-called "scholarly sources" is not acceptable. An open mind towards information is needed, not a determined agenda to keep a POV you favour and are building by all your barrage of off-the-wall rationales to exclude sources and attack the person telling you about them.
That claim that the Chinese were "afraid" of whites and didn't stake until the whites had left is hilariously distorted; and doesn't account for the thousands of Chinese who did stake, often before anyone else did; at Cayoosh Creek, 300 Chinese staked out the creek without giving anyone else a chance to; that one example of American hostility towards one group of Chinese miners at one location being concocted into a generalization about all Chinese, and all whites, is typical of the one-sided sources you want to give priority to here (naming the author in the article text), many of them very obscure relative to the sea of general histories of BC, and local histories of BC, that you wish to exclude from your "thesis" that you are constructing here and do not want to hear about; and if you do you come up with specious arguments that there are zero results in a googlebooks search, as if that's all defined the world. As for that bit about Hope, your source makes no mention of the date; and frankly it sounds far more like myth than fact; as is another statement re "Hongcouver" shirts being sold "all over the place". Funny, I don't rememeber that and was there during that period; if they were anywhere, they were on sale in Chinatown; non-Chinese wouldn't wear such a thing; if they did exist they were pulled off the shelves when SUCCESS denounced the term; the term is not something a born-Vancouverite would ever walk around wearing on their chest....especially if they were historic-population Vancouver Chinese. Does the source who claims that produce any media sites for it....or page-cites in books? Sounds like an old-wives tale, repeated by an academic unquestioningly, because everyone knows white peoples are racist; we didn't even invent the term; and because it's in a "shoclarly" source you treat it as a fact to continue tub-thumping how racist whites were towards the influx.
Incidents of Chinese racism against whites, Indo-Canadians, Filipinos, blacks and more are scrupulously avoided by such "scholarly' sources; those sources are really op-eds and not factual; they are "scholarly" and the people publishing them have "alphabet soup after their names", and footnoted; that doesn't give them any more validity or quality as sources than the veritable sea of other sources, which if you were ever t o read them, would find lots more about the history of Chinese in BC, good, bad and more informative and complete' than the narrow and biased, but oh-so-footnoted, range of "scholarly" sources.Skookum1 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cumberland

These links don't have any mention of the mine strike in the '00s led by Ginger Goodwin, who was hunted down and shot dead by police while leading it, but there are pictures out there that should be PD-100 that illustrate the use of barbed wire fences and guard towers - to protect Chinese workers/miners from labour union violence/attack against their status as scabs (strike breaking workers); the Chinese population existed before that, and Japanese also who were the first miners there.

The Cumberland, British Columbia page has a bit on its Chinatown already, there is much more detail in these links that's useful when somebody has time to add it, likewise here where the presence of mostly trivial content has outweighed (so far) much more important content re actual history rather than analyses of it using sketchy out-of-context academicist theses rather than actual useful facts and real history.

I won't take time to format these links, just give them here if somebody gets around to using them for ; they are all local history pages, with links to further pages, and one from hellobc.com and an item on the town's cemetery from the VPL [21], [22] [23] [24].

There's various GoogleBooks that mention Cumberland. There's a few mentions of labour strife and explosions the Chinese were blamed for in this history of Canadian law, which also gives in notes newspaper sources carrying events described in 1902-03.Skookum1 (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia/Archive_3&oldid=676785748"