Canada: History Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

What about Sverdrup Islands?

Quite right, though that article doesn't say anything (yet) about Norway's efforts to press territorial claims in the wake of its own independence (post-1904); this was a formal claim unlike the Portuguese "colonies" stated here, which could not have fbeen formal Portuguese colonies because of hte Bull of Tordesillas; yes Baffin, Ellesmere and Sverdrup equate roughly to Helluland and Markland; the difference is t hat the latter were never political claims by any Norse kingdom, whereas the modern claims to Baffin, Ellesmere etc were actual political/diplomatic claims of possession. Likewise Hans Island re Denmark.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need a source for Ellesmere and Baffin, otherwise I won't believe it. I removed them because, basically, I think you're wrong. Including Hans Island is POV, as Denmark will say it's not in Canada - and anyway it's not a separate colony or territory, it's claimed as an integral part of Greenland.--Barend (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Barend. This template needs a good bit of cleanup.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem is, in terms of what you've removed, is that if Vinland and Helluland were not formal colonies - neither was the Oregon Country, which was not even a claim; it was just a name, an idea, and an actual claim was specifically set aside by either party (US and Britain); the Columbia District, which was parallel to it, also was not a claim, but an operating district, not even an operating license/monopoly as with Rupert's Land (where title was asserted). Norwegians, if not formally the Kingdom of Norway, did call for the Sverdrups - and also Ungava, actually - to be Norwegian colonies, in the same way that Americans asserted that the Oregon Country was "naturally" to become part of the United States and was theirs by "right" aka Manifest Destiny; but it was no more a formal colony, in any way. Similarly Russian America was not a colony, as of 1799 it was asserted to be an integral part of the Russian Empire itself, and in 1821 was extended south from its original southward delimitation at 51 N (Cape Scott) to below the mouth of the Columbia River, and only in 1824-25 was the Russian claim to sovereignty withdrawn to 54-40. But it was never a colony. Under Russian law, if not diplomatically accepted, it was part of the empire itself, i.e. not just a trading monpoly with title, as was Rupert's Land. Similarly the Spanish base at Nootka and their claims along the surrounding coast (north to Cook Inlet...) was not just considered to be, by the Papal Bull and Balboa's declaration of the Pacific as a "Spanish lake", part of New Spain, it was also referred to and conceived of as part of Alta California. This was before the creation of the Columbia Department/District and well before the US had any notion of its own claims in that region. So why discriminate against the Norwegian claims and the fact that the main commercial presence in the region - whaling and sealing stations - were purely Norwegian, long before Canada sent anybody northwards and started painting the map pink to show it "owns" something it, frankly, is not even capable to this day of actually defending....Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And about a source for that, Barend, what I'm recounting is the gist of a feature article in one of the national newspapers, maybe the Globe and Mail although it might have been in the VAncouver Sun; it's been a while; I don't have paid archive access, nor am I student or faculty for free access; and I can't remember how long ago it was; at some point in the last ten years, though, and before the Hans Island dispute. Also, there's this erstwhile claim about the Swedish Knutson expedition, which is supposed to be connected to the Kensington Runestone et al., and was under mandate of the King of Sweden to establish colonies/posessions....Vinland, if that's what l'Anse aux Meadows really is (and myself I doubt it, for various reasons), may have been a military camp; but if it was the Vinland of the sagas, it was an outlaw outpost and not "colonization" in the formal sense (so that article title is, on a strict basis, actually inaccurate; none of the Kings of Norway, Denmark or Sweden asserted a claim (at that time, cf th Knutson Expedition later on); the Henry Sinclair story, well, that's another matter. But the Basque 'colonies' were not formal colonies, either, just fishing stations.....so the name of this template, using that "colonies" word, has its own problems, and applying it to strictly means that a lot of what's on it should just come off, period. Either that, or a more flexible mindset in dealing with it - and renaming and redefning it - is called for.Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you're probably right. This template is, to a large extent, spurious, useless, meaningless. I know about the socalled Norse colonies, not about the others, but if they are as spurious as the Norwegian colonies, than they too should be removed. Is this template needed?--Barend (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL there's a lot on Wikipedia that's not needed....including about half the admin population ;-). No, I can't really see a reason for it, especially named the way it is; full of conceits and almost-fictions, like Fusang....if that's here, there's a case to be made for Brobdingnag, too (which Swift placed at about 55 N in the same area as the BC-Alaska border...). Ditto Anian etc. - and Cibola, for that matter (aka Eldorado, though that's really a reference to Cibola's ruler)Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long ago it was me who removed Fusang, which had been here.....but once I got to putting in Russian America - which in typically central-Canadian myopic fashion wasn't here - the spurious nature of representing Basque and Portuguese fishing activity as "colonies", and the even more spurious Helluland nad Markland - never colonized, never settled by the Norse, never claimed (until Norway did so in the early 20th Century).....Fusang's apocryphal nature is no more or less apocryphal than Markland and Helluland. And Vinland is only theorized as having been in Canada; it could still ahve been Cape Cod or wherever else - L'Anse aux Meadows was a military encampment, and there are no direct ties to Vinlandasaga. So I took out Helluland and Markland, which were just "on the map" (and then not even clearly, though it's pretty clear either or both Baffin and Labrador were what's referred to...well, it's not clear at all actually). As far as Chinese claims go, irrespective of the Fusang story, it happens that teh anti-Qing elements in BC considered and stated BC to be "the Colonies of T'ang", with "T'ang" meaning (non-Qing-ruled) China; like a claim by a provisional government, even a govenrment-in-exile. Gumshan if not Fusang is definitely as much or more of a "colony" than fishing camps in the St. Lawrence or the uninhabited wastes of Helluland and Markland - which were not colonies...Vinland itself wasn't a colony either; it was a settlement project, a "n ew country" with no political ties to Norway or Iceland or Denmark; in fact it was founded to be not-a-colony but decidedly the opposite; a "rebel" settlement without a king or empire......Given all this, I surmised that if the "Norse colonies" were here, and the Basque/Portuguese (which were never "claims" and are also largely apocryphal), it seemed to me that the Fusang story was just as legitimate in belonging here, "bullshit" though it may in fact be; equally bullshit is hte idea that Helluland was a "colony"......Skookum1 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This needs to be about actual colonies. I would support a link to the Norse colonies which will provide information about that. However Fusang is nonsense; even if it were considered anything but hypothetical or mythical, has anyone ever specified that it would have been in Canada? I don't know anything about Gumshan or the other European colonies, but either this template needs to include only actual colonies or it needs to be renamed something to the effect of "Settlements and hypothetical settlements in what is now Canada."--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not originate the template, but from its contents it refers to claims of possession as well as actual formal colonies; "Colonies and territorial claims in what is now Canada" is more like it; actual titular assertion, not settlements exactly; though the Basque and Portuguese sections are definitely settlements only, and the furhter logic extended from Vinland to (never settled, unless you believe Farley Mowat) Helluland and Markland. Thet Russian and Spanish possessions/claims were bona fide imperial positions; it was because Helluland and the Basque "colonies" were in there I included Fusang; it's only half-mythical; my point in including it is that it has been used in making Chiense what-if imperial claims about Horth America; yes, it has no forma l sbustance or evidence; but it was a claim within the orbit of the Chinese Emipre; in the days when the Chinese Emipre made such claims. Gumshan is Gum shan, "Gold Mountain", still the Chinese name for western North America and as it happens the Chinese self-govenring bodies in BC deescribed that province as "Colonies of T'ang" (i.e. colonies of China) rather than as a British colony. The Oregon Country I included because of both American claims north to 54-40 but also because there were American Fur Company posts in what is now BC; and also because much of what became Oregon Territory "used to be (British) Columbia". If only formal claims and actual colonies shoudl be here, then the Norse section, the Portugese section and Basque section can all go; unless Newfoundland is east of the Line orf Tordesillas, in which case Portugal did claim it....Skookum1 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really think this should only be for actual colonies. This includes the British ones, and there ought to be a link for L'Anse aux Meadows, which certainly was a colony (in a different sense than the British colonies) as well as a link to Norse colonization of the Americas, which discusses Norse presence in the New World which obviously included Canada. Helluland et al should go. And Fusang is entirely hypothetical or mythical; there's no evidence for it while the Basques and Russians were actually there, and again, did not appear to be specific to Canada. I'm sure there's a source about former colonies of Canada; we should use whatever it is they include and leave out fishing settlements and hypothetical visits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's colonies in Canada, not colonies of Canada......and the Russians and the Basques are two entirely different situations; Navarre did not declare colonies and it's dubious whether a fish-salting camp is a "settlement"; the Russians are an entirely different matter, and until 1825 did claim waht is now British Columbia as part of Russian America; in fact they also claimed south to 43 N (though were repudiated quickly), but also at times Russian maps show the Stikine Territory and Yukon as part of Russian America (one map even shows Alberta/NWT as part of Russian America.....). Now re l'Anse aux Meadows, if that is a "colony" the question is begged - whose colony? Iceland's? Norway's? Grand Fenwick's? I can swee wanting to include it; but then the meaning of "colony" is extended and implies other consequences as to what or what might not be included (as I think Barend now might agree about the Sverdrup Islands - see Talk:Norway).Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about "Colonies, claims and possessions in Canada"? or psssessions->territories maybe? Point is with "colonies" only it excludes the non-colonial British possessions/claims, which were by far the largest part of British North America, i.e. Rupert's Land, the North-Western Territory, New Caledonia, the Columbia Department/District, the Stikine Territory....none were colonies, and technically - other than Rupert's Land - none were possessions (and even Rupert's Land was a corporate possession, not a state one).Skookum1 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to further note that he French also had a claim in the Pacific Northwest, but it vanished with La Perouse and the onset of the Napoleonic Wars; I'm not sure what name they used for the region/claim, if they had one at all; must be in diplomatic histories somewhere.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And as before, re Vinland vs L'Anse aux Meadows, there's no proof that the latter is the former, and despite a large body of accepeted literary evidence (mostly Vinlandssaga) Vinland's location and identity and history do remain apocryphal - there's no way to say that Vinland was in Canada - it may not have been. What would help, of course, is the discovery of some manuscript evidence at L'Anse aux Meadows, which in years of searching none has been found (were there even runes?)......so again despite stronger literary evidence and ancillary archaeological evidence, Vinland is in the same apocryphal/legendary status as Fusang; and saying "well there's no archaeological evidence" for fusang isn't quite right either, because Chinese artifacts have turned up, and continue to, in areas from northwestern BC through teh lower Columbia down to San Diego; again there's no documentary connection between the coins, ship anchors, buddhas etc and the Fusang legend, or for that matter between various native legends of visitors from beyond/somewhere else. China, at least under the Qing and I think thte T'ang and other dynasties, continued to assert Fusang as one of hte imperial dominions or subject states; although as per that article it could have been only Japan that was meant....Skookum1 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say Vinland ought to be included, I said L'Anse aux Meadows should be included, as well as a link to Norse colonization of the Americas, so that the reader can get the information on that: whatever Norse settlements there were beyond Greenland were likely in Canada. I would say this qualifies as a "colony"; what sort of colony is something to be discussed at the article. As for Fusang, look, there's just no sense in including it, as you admit yourself that there's no proof the minimal documentary evidence and the Fusang legend, and no real connection between Fusang and Canada. Further, I would say that Russian America belongs here, but probably not the Portuguese or Spanish settlements/camps or the American Fort Defiance, and I don't think the Scottish communities ought to be separate from the British section, as Nova Scotia was not established as a distinct Scottish colony (or territory). Barend is right about the Norwegian and Danish claims.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[undent]For Defiance was on what is now Canadian soil, and while privately-owned flew the American flag and was part of the background of US territorial claims in the region (see Oregon boundary dispute); I would have added Fort Shuswap, which was the (American-owned) Pacific Fur Company post at Kamloops, but there's no article on it (yet); other American activity on the Pacfiic Coast was ship-borne although centred on places like Cumshewa Inlet and Gold Harbour and Norfolk Sound (the last named now in Alaska), i.e. on identifiable locales;their activites were considered "economic activity" in the context of the competing claims in the region; sumarized as "Oregon Country" but in truth also including the Alaska Panhandle; and as far as the Spanish go, I wasn't referring to the Atlantic at all, but to Fort San Miguel and the Spanish claims in the PacNW, which went as far as the longitude of Mount Saint Elias; Cook Inlet in extremis; all this was New Spain, or claimed to be so, until the respective treaties with the Russians and Americans and British set the northward limit of New Spain at 42 N; Russia did not have a post in what's now BC; Spain did. And if L'Anse aux Meadows is a colony by dint of being an organized settlement, the many Norwegian whaling stations around Baffinland and Ungava that formed the basis of the short-lived Norwegian claim were as much colonies as L'Anse aux Meadows. The Nova Scotia/Scottish colonies issue has been debated elsewhere, I believe, I'm not famliar with the details; all I recall is that the distinction is made between English colonies and Scottish colonies up to the Acts of Union. Granted, not all "claimed states/possessions" shoudl be included; the Sikh daydream of a Khalistan in South Surrey, New Iceland, e.g. the outside-the-state communalism of the Doukhobour and Hutterite colonies - which are called colonies, no less.Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still don't agree that Sverdrup Islands should be included, as it was never a colony. Whaling stations was not the basis for the shortlived Norwegian claim, according to the info I have found. It was that the area was mapped by a Norwegian (Sverdrup). Anyway, L'Anse aux Meadows was much more a colony than any Norwegian whaling stations that may have been in Baffin Island: L'Anse aux Meadows was a permanent settlement. It must be noted though, that it was a colony in the older sense of the word, i.e. a settlement in a distant land, rather than in the modern sense of a politically subordinate area - there was no Norwegian political control of the settlement there.--Barend (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I'm going to try to reformat the template so that only actual colonies and territories are included. Let me know what you think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I added a link to L'Anse aux Meadows and Norse colonization; I removed the Portuguese camps; merged the Scottish settlements in with the English and British section (where most of them appeared already), and I removed Fort Defiance. I left in the Spanish Fort San Miguel and Oregon Country link, as Skookum correctly points out that Spain and later the United States did actually claim land as a territory (or part of a larger territory, namely Alta California and Oregon Country) and had settlement there. I think Barend is correct about the Norwegian claims. Hopefully this will go towards clearing this all up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And as to the Scottish settlement, there were Scottish colonies before the Acts of Union, but there already is a section called "English and British." Scotland should not be separated from the British section unless England is as well; for the purposes of a template I think putting them under one heading reduces confusion and doesn't make it look as if the Scots don't have as much part in the Kingdom of Great Britain as the English.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whaling stations were contextual to the claim, whether Sverdrup's or the eventual and brief Norwegian government claim; this I do remember from the article I've mentioned, notably given the absence of any Canadian or British installations of any kind in the region.....the Scots thing I'm less interested in than the factualities of the Pacific claims/territories....one thing Fort San Miguel might be a little more helpful if it were Fort San Miguel (Nootka Sound) as the name of Ft San Miguel is not so widely known. There's also a technical argument that Meares' outpost that triggered the Nootka Crisis could be seen as a British territory, at least Meares claimed that it was (hence the crisis); I think he even gave it a name, I'll check; this is long in advance of the chartering of the Columbia District or New Caledonia; it mauy fall inte hsame league as Ft Definace, i.e. a one-man show, but then there are arguments that the PFC's Fort Shuswap (today's Kamloops) was also a one-man show, as with many fur posts......other than those obscurities there's two others though somewhat technical; until the Treaty of 1818 the Louisiana Purchase/Territory included parts of what's now Alberta and Saskatchewan; a sliver of land but still technically a constituted external claim (which was of course also Spanish and French in previous years). Also, though largely theoretical, Alaska Territory was held by the Americans to include areas now in British Columbia - the lower Stikine, Bennett Lake, Atlin etc......just some thoughts, and I realize they're technical; but they were formal claims, which L'Anse aux Meadows is not....is there ny proof oaf any kind. perhaps runic or artifactual, that suggest that L'Anse was Norwegian?....it's been carbon-dated roughly to Thorfin's time I believe but how exactly? Reason I'm asking is a later expedition mandated by the King of Sweden, can't remember in what year, 1300s or 1400s...but then if apocryphal voages/colonies start getting listed we're back to where we started, and Henry Sinclair's not even in the equation yet......falls in teh same category as Cibola and the like.....anyway looks good now, though like I said geo-locating Ft San Miguel would probably help, and the technical claims of parts of Canada as Alaska Territory and Louisiana Territory shoudl maybe also be considered....Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

L'Anse aux Meadows was a Norse settlement, no one claims it's Norwegian specifically, as that country didn't exist at the time. It certainly existed, was certainly Norse, and was certainly in Canada, so it belongs here. The type of colony it was or may have been is something I feel belongs in the article itself. The hypothetical or legendary colonies have no place here. As for the technical claims and the ephemeral settlements, I don't think they really belong either, unless reliable sources include them in discussions about the colonial history of what is now Canada.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[undent]If by "ephemeral settlements" you're meaning things like Ft Defiance or Ft Shuswap, you're walking into the wrong water; Meares' mini-colony was significant enougth to precipitate a global crisis between teh Spanish and French, Shuswap was part of the American claim extending out of Ft Astoria - also "ephemeral" though unless lost territories of what would become Canada are included, which of course they can't be; in tersm of teh int'l legal history/claim in teh area such locations/uses are implciitly part of the diploamtic/rtreaty equation. The Alaska Territory ahnd Lousiaiana Purchase/Territory irredentismsthese are somewhat different in that no formal US settlements were in the "buffer" they abandoned claim to in 1903 (See Alaska boundary dispute and note maps: the sliver of the Louisiana Purchase that got traded for the Red River Valley in 1818 wasn't settled or chartered, I'm not sure that it was constituted as a US territory yet - but it WAS considered a possession of the United States, likewise Oregon Country (though tehre Britain and the US had agreed to stand down from deciding which and where for quite a while). If you don't think this is part of the history of Canada, then without being rude I have to tell you that there's clearly a lot of Canadian - specifically BC and "lost BC" history that you obvoiusly don't know yet......and unless you can tell me how long L'Anse aux Meadows was occupied, it's not much less ephemeral than Gray's or Meares' outposts; although in terms of being a military encampment, or military-style, it more resembles Fort San Miguel. All of this is verifiable out hte ying-yang; they are part of teh colonial history of Canada, though most Canadian history seems to end its perspective at t he Rockies.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Active economic use" was one of the main colonial/territorial prerequisites/claim-related/colonialist self-defintions in the region; it's not technical at all; especially on the coast where Russian, Spanish, British and American trade activity is fundamental to the history fo the region and how it became a colony of Canada ( and waht didn't remain British enough to become part of ht Canada). There's one other semi-legendary story, but which does have some archaeological backup, about a mysterious spanish settlement/migration to Kelowna from the Coast, which met its end near Keremeos; it just has no name/article so isn't here, and it wasn't a claim by New Spain, it's thought it might ahv been pirates.....also in teh Alaska Panhandle buffer there were lots of Americans, especially on certain rivers/creeks.....no formal towns, but several hundres - even thousands - of Yanks...this was not "ephemeral" - most of theose miners would ahve been on-site for several seasons....about the same length of time as L'Anse aux Meadows might have survived.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The implication of the title is "Colonies of the Dominion of Canada", not "colonies that were where Canada is now"....the reversion of my deletion of the inclusion of Helluland and Markland I'm not going to bother to edit war about. The title and content of this template have always bothered me....Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same as with Russian America and the Oregon Country; the Spanish claim was considered, by them, to be part of New Spain. Some source somewhere explains that it was considered part of Alta California, also....Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]