Talk:North American fur trade/Archive 1

So I created this site
I was shocked to see that there wasn't an independent article for the North American Fur Trade. I know that most of this info is over at the fur trade article but I figured it might be best to make that one more international and technical. Thus it would mean individual articles for the history of specific fur trades such as North America. I'll be working on this one whenever I get a chance, I'm sort of new at this, I usually edit and instead of create from scratch. Most of this article can be just "fill" from other articles but of course good notation is a plus. I welcome one and all to help out with this article. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Xerxes2004 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Xerxes, thank you for creating it. A separate article on this subject was discussed some time ago at Talk:Coureur des bois; it is good to see that you took the initiative.  I will post some thoughts on organization under separate headers.  Kablammo (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization
I think the organizational schema makes some sense, but it might be better to let the article develop a little first. I can contribute a section to the fur trade in the pays d'en haut, which does not fit into a separate heading now. Perhaps a more general background section, followed by the westward development of the trade progressing both chronologically, followed by an appraisal and conclusion section. Sections and subsections will appear as text is added. In other words I suggest a more organic approach to article organization rather than adoption of a rigid structure now. Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
While I believe Xerxes is from the U.S. (as am I), I suggest we follow Canadian spelling conventions, given the fur trade's importance to the development of Canada. (I changed the spelling convention for Red River Trails for the same reason.) While the trade was important in US history, it was crucial in the history of Canada. Kablammo (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

List of fur trading posts
While I will not remove this list now, is probably should be split off into a separate list, or category. Kablammo (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kablammo, I agree with you on this one. I did pull a cut and paste from the main fur trade article.  The list probably deserves its own article, something like "list of fur trading posts and forts of North America."  Since it's just from the fur trade article I will go ahead and delete it but we should make a link to it if and when the list article ever gets made.  I'm not much for writing new articles, I've done mostly minor edits.  You think since there are so many specific articles out there to which I've created "links to main article" that we could just condense those generally well done articles to create short summaries for this article?  Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes2004 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

More stuff coming
I'm working on the "British and French Competition" as well as "Social and Cultural Impact" parts right now and will probably get them up soon. If anyone knows anything about the fur trade on the plains, the American Fur Company, or modern fur trapping please add some stuff. This article could use some geographic diversity. I'll do something about it when I get to it but I'm no expert. Cheers! Xerxes2004 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is nice work! North8000 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on Métis
I've added some content from 's draft at their request on the Métis people and the fur trade. I think it may need to be better integrated between here and the Métis people (Canada) article, but I recommend you not do so hastily, as there are a number of good references and the account is detailed. Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk)

Critique of Aboriginal response to French-English competition - over exploitation and depletion of beavers (school assignment)
This article could be made stronger with more sources and more accurate phrasing. First, the article needs more sources. There are paragraphs of information which have no source, and other editors have already requested that more sources be added to the article. Information is also repeated several times, such as Aboriginal people acting as the “middleman” without sourcing it.

The article could also be improved by specifying what groups composed the “Aboriginals” who were affected by the fur trade. The word Aboriginal is used to be all encompassing, but there are several different indigenous groups in Canada, such as the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. This article could be made much stronger by specifying what tribes were affected, and how fur trapping affected each tribe differently.

This article also uses leading language and phrases, such as “glaringly visible” which suggests the viewpoint of the author. More neutral language should be used. In the second to last paragraph in the section, a bias against the French fur trade is detectable.

One last critique of the article – the article needs to have a more concise name. The current name, Aboriginal response to French-English competition - over exploitation and depletion of beavers, is too long. Rather than have a title that long, a subsection should be created about the exploitation and depletion of beavers, and how it affected the indigenous people there. --Clarksc2 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Review and suggestions (re Southeastern fur trade)
This new section provides a great overview of a major commercial network. Here are some points for improvement. --Carwil (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Time passed between the original Spanish exploration and the next wave of European immigration…"—This could be made specific more specific. Roughly which decades?
 * "friendships" seems questionable. "Long-term trading relationships"?
 * "The beginning of the 18th century was marred by violence" — Don't introduce w/ a value judgment and attribute the ones you use. At the same time, this gives the impression that the trade was violence free in the 1600s, which it wasn't. It's admittedly difficult to describe everything (wait until Mississippian shatter zone is created as an article), but summaries are useful.
 * I strongly recommend digesting pages 101-108 of Paul Kelton's Epidemics and Enslavement, even if you don't include either disease or enslavement here: it explains the value of the goods Europeans traded, the threat Native Americans faced from Westo slave raiding (and therefore some of their desire to buy weapons), and the terms of trade as understood by both sides.
 * "The Yamasees were a coastal tribe in South Carolina" — Nope. There were in their land. No South Carolina yet.
 * "The Creeks rose up as the largest deerskin supplier, which only intensified European demand for deerskins." Do you mean that the Creeks supplied more deerskins than ever before? Otherwise is there something special about Creek-hunted deerskins?
 * "how their treatment varied": "now"?
 * "Native American beliefs revolved around respecting the environment." Be careful to specify which group's beliefs you're describing here and what sources confirms this.
 * I think "effects of" section actually says a lot about the terms of trade with Europeans. I would move all that material to to the top of the section and describe the southeastern trade overall. Then, I would keep the lingering effects at the bottom.
 * Sounds good. Do it!  :-)  North8000  (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

John Jacob Astor
How does an article on the North American Fur Trade exist without mentioning John Jacob Astor, and other major players in its formation? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Do it! :-) North8000 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Bias
The way women are described in the building relationships is blatantly bias. A lot of "Indian" women were sought after brides, political influencers, not dumb/mute sex-desperate women throwing themselves on the ground for the benefit of colonial agents. The first hand accounts from the perspective of these men is highly suspect and directly contradicted by a more objective approach to the subject. Consider Molly Brant who was an Iroquois woman who was the widow of a British Indian Agent and was said to hold more political sway than all her chiefs put together and any other white man, as reported by another Indian Agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesiantheory (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll lets divide that into comments on what is in there an what isn't in there. On what is in there, the material looks plausible and is sourced to a book written on that exact topics.  IMO we should not be taking it out simply because it describes something that would be disdained by current views.  Regarding what isn't in there, you seem to have knowledge and presumably sources in this area. My suggestion is to add sourced material in those areas. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But wow, that overall topic seems overcovered. 3,600 words of a very general article are about the relationship / role of Indian women, and it really goes off into the weeds. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clarksc2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)