Jump to content

Talk:Maritime fur trade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Maritime Fur Trade)
Good articleMaritime fur trade has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 22, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Maritime Fur Trade helped New England transform from an agrarian to an industrial society?

Quibbles

[edit]
  • It lasted until the middle to late 19th century. Russians controlled the Alaskan coast during the entire era.

Well, the exception is 1839-1867, when the British controlled the trade in the southeast Alaska Panhandle (south of 56'30"); the wording should also be "what is now the Alaskan coast" as before 1867 "Alaska" as a term meant the "Alaska mainland", i.e. west of 141st longitude..

Ya, that could be worded better. I was trying to say something about the difference between the "northern sector" vs. the "southern sector", divided approximately at Sitka--just used the word "Alaska" as shorthand--perhaps could be better put. Pfly (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere else I can't find just now the article says that the triangular trade had no great impact on other economies; that must be an opinion from one of your sources because I've read materials - have to think who later - that say that the sea otter trade launched the porcelain trade and inherently was a foundation of the China Trade, both the UK and the US; thereby, please note, laying the seeds of the trade imbalance that led to the Opium Wars; traders had to accept porcelain instead of silver in Canton by Chinese law; then the shipping of porcelain via/into British Indian instigated the reverse trade in tea/opium which brought about so much grief later; others have observed that the marine fur trade laid the foundations for the long-standing trade connections between China and BC; at least as far as familiarity with the routes used; likewise the old and still-established bond between Hawaii and BC. I'll see if I can remember which authors said things like that; the Akriggs possibly, Bancroft also possibly.Skookum1 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the source for that part is the Gibson book. His point was that the effect on Chinese society (not just economy) as a whole was not huge, and that the fur trade was relatively small compared to the china trade in general. As far as I know the general China trade predated the fur trade in Canton. At least the East India Company was already operating there, and the first America traders in China were not fur traders. Gibson's got a few tables about trade volumes and such on the topic. He sums up the whole topic by saying something like, the China Trade ended up with the Opium Wars and the forcing open of China, etc, but that the maritime fur trade was a relatively minor aspect of the China Trade. It's a topic I know little about though, so perhaps there are other better sources. Anyway, off to Portland for a couple days. Pfly (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note: I fixed the date error for Fort Taku in the first map. Pfly (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary review

[edit]

These are mostly nit-picky things found in a very interesting article.

Map captions

  • Some editors prefer "about" to "c." because not all readers know what "c." means.
Makes sense, did it. Is "about" preferable over "approximately"?
I like short words as opposed to long ones that mean the same thing. This might just be a matter of taste, but I have encountered other editors who agree. "Around" is another option. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russians

  • "From 1743 to the founding of the Russian-American Company in 1799 over one hundred private fur trading and hunting voyages to North America, which in total garnered over eight million silver rubles." - Word(s) missing?
Yes, added a few. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British

  • "... he spent a month in Nootka Sound, during which time he and his crew traded with the Nuu-chah-nulth from the village of Yuquot" - Delete "time" since "month" already covers this.
Had to read it twice to see it made sense. Good one.
  • "Later, after Cook had been killed in Hawaii, the expedition visited Canton... ". - Wikilink Canton to Guangzhou?
It was linked earlier, but much earlier, so yea, linked.
Ah, missed it. I usually don't link things more than once in the main text and once in the lead, and for things like United States or England, certainly not more than once overall. This is a long, complicated article, though, so maybe twice for Canton is OK. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you convinced me and I just took out the second link. I did link some things more than once on this page--sometimes it seemed appropriate or useful (and other editors have added multiple links here and there). Canton though, doesn't seem like it needed multiple links. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the exclusive right to British trade on the entire western coast of the Americas from Cape Horn to Bering Strait and for three hundred leagues out into the Pacific Ocean." - Should "leagues" also be expressed in miles and kilometers?
Doh, of course. Linked League (unit) and gave miles and km. Must be "approximate" since "league" is not fully standard, and might have been nautical or land based, I think. I almost added this zone to the global map, but it seemed overkill (and would have been tricky to do anyway).
  • "and the first woman known to have sailed, openly as a woman, around the world" - "Openly as a woman" seems repetitious. Isn't this covered by the phrase "known to have sailed"? Maybe just "and the first woman known to have sailed around the world"?
That makes sense, but apparently there was at least one, perhaps several other women who were known to have sailed around the world before Frances--just that when they did they were disguised as men--only later was it known about, but still before Frances's time. The details are in the source cited. That's why it says "openly as a woman". And, hmm, the "first woman known to have sailed" bit is supposed to indicate that there might have been others before her we don't know about, but who "sailed openly as a women". Make sense? But yes, an odd combination of phrases. Perhaps we could lose the "first known", making it just: "the first woman to have sailed, openly as a woman, around the world"? Or would it be better to actually explain it like I just did. Seems rather tangential though.
Maybe "the first woman to have sailed, undisguised as a man, around the world"? The word "openly" carries a hint of something anatomical that is not intended. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I hadn't thought about it like that. Actually I borrowed the phrase "openly as a woman" from the source used. Anyway, just reworded the passage. Rereading that source shows that two woman were before Frances, one disguised as a man, the other a stowaway (the captain, her husband, was in on it--basically taking her along but trying to keep it a secret). I decided to simply mention these two. One has a WP page anyway, Jeanne Baré. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spain rejected both claims; the true facts of the matter have never been fully established." - Would it be helpful here to add a phrase here making clear why Spain was involved? Maybe, "Spain, which sought control of Nootka Sound, rejected both claims... "? Or something like that. This is all explained in the next paragraph, which might have to be revised slightly to avoid repetition if you add something here.
I've added more about Spain and Russia in the section's "lead", and a mention of Nootka Sound. I'll have to read again, more fully, to get a sense of whether more needs to be said about Spain here. Actually, I would like to add more about Spain in general--there were a few Spanish attempts to join in the fur trading system. Quadra was into the idea. It was hard to figure out how to add such info--there are already so many threads, I fear making a tangled mess. But hmm, if nothing else your suggestion of "Spain, which sought control of Nootka Sound, rejected both claims" sounds just fine.
Yes, your mention of Quadra reminded me of the island and other islands (Gabriola, Cortez) and other geographic entities (Strait of Juan de Fuca) so common in the region. There's lots of possible material, hard to organize coherently. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Nootka Crisis in the last sentence of this section since it is linked earlier in the same section?
Righto.

Americans

Yep.
  • "The arrival of the Columbia at Boston was celebrated for being the first American circumnavigation of the world." - This needs a source even if covered by the ref at the end of the paragraph. Otherwise, it's almost certain to be challenged.
Heh..isn't that common knowledge? :-) Will do. Just need to figure out *which* source. I'm sure I have one around here *somewhere*..
In general, the article might be a bit undersourced rather than oversourced. This particular claim jumped out at me because it's so clearly extraordinary. I have sometimes oversourced things and had to remove some of the redundant citations, but this is a much easier thing to do than to track down sources from library books that have been returned. In general, I try to source as I go, citing at least one source for every paragraph (except the lead) in the article, as well as sources for statistics, direct quotes, and any claim that is apt to be challenged. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, I was joking. Always had the impression that in Oregon the tale of Gray and the Columbia was drilled into schoolkids from an early age. :-) Anyway, added two sources, both older and interesting for being uncommon, I think.
  • The last paragraph of this section needs a source.
I think I'm just going to take out that last bit for now. It should be better written and researched. I probably got one or two company names wrong anyway. Don't remember where I found the names. The text works without it. I'd like to describe the American companies a bit, but need to do some research, which may or may not be easy. So, for now, best left unsaid, I think.
Oop, just realized I still need to source the text I didn't cut. Will do.
Done. Added a bunch of refs, took out a few less notable names. Also took out the vessel names as captains and ships did not always stay together. Perhaps someday I'll add another bit about "notable vessels", as some were famous in their own right, like the Tonquin. Pfly (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boom years

  • "Its charter was laid out in a 1799 ukase (proclamation) by the new Tsar Paul... ". - Explaining ukase in parentheses is good, but this should occur on first mention of ukase in the "Russians" subsection of "Origins".
done. Pfly (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diversification and transformation

  • "the Khlebnikov Ranch in the Salmon Creek valley about a mile north of the present day Bodega" - Metric equivalent?
Sure.
  • "Ships sailed from Boston to the Pacific via Cape Horn" - Link Cape Horn?
Yep.
  • "As fur resources dwindled and prices rose, ship captains increasingly concentrated on few key ports of call and stayed longer." - Missing word? Maybe "a few key ports of call"?
Doh.

The New North West trade

  • I'd shorten the head to "New North West trade".
I have a plan to change the section/subsection structure a bit, and this one's name. Will take a bit more thought though.
The Manual of Style advises telegraphic style for heads and subheads, which generally means avoiding "a", "an", or "the" as the first word. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North West Coast

Sure. Not venereal disease?
Yes, that too. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian America

  • Needs a source or sources.
Done. Pfly (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, great, thanks, and perfect timing. I was just about to print some of this stuff and try to get back to working on it more. What a crazy weekend this was--total chaos! At least it was sunny and beautiful; PNW summer is ready to GO. That strange ball of fire in the sky has returned with a vengeance. Pfly (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready for it. Biking this winter was easier than usual, but April was not as good because of rain and wind; the wind on some days seemed to blow in my face no matter which way I went. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

[edit]

Before I lose my jumbled pile of notes and forget it all, here's some possible things to add someday:

  • A "Sea Otter" subsection under "Significance", in which the details of the near-extinction of sea otters can be described a little. As I understand it, the creatures were driven to total extinction through the Northwest Coast, from Prince William Sound to south-central California, where a tiny remnant survived. They survived in some number in the Aleutians and Kurils, and in more recent times sea otters from these places have been transplanted along a few areas of the Northwest Coast, with mixed results. Also, somewhere I read that the collapse of the fur trade--due to a change in fashion and the Chinese trade falling apart during the economic crises of the early-mid 1800s, iirc--probably saved the sea otter from total extinction. Something to research anyway. Seems worth including, as the poor sea otter is central to this whole thing.
  • More on Tlingit-Russian relations--mixture of working together and violent conflict. The case of Sitka being destroyed by the Tlingit and re-established only after a major battle is one thing, but not the end of the story. Apparently in 1805 the Tlingit attacked and destroyed Slavorossiya, AKA Yakutat. The settlement had been meant, at one point, to be the colonial capital. After the Tlingit attack it was never rebuilt. The Russians apparently tried, "persistently", to blame the Americans, who had sold guns to the Tlingit, for the attack. Tlingit oral tradition offers a number of different reasons, including the Russian practice of sending (some) Tlingit children to a school at Kodiak, where they were treated, in the Tlingit view, as slaves. There's more on this topic. Info above comes from pages 141-143 of: Russians in North America, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America. Sitka, Alaska, August 19-22, 1987. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. A couple short notes from this source:
    • Population at Yakutat is unclear, but estimated as 15 Russian promyshlenniki, 9 settlers with families, a clerk, a blacksmith, and a mechanic. Also 20 kaiury and 15 kaiurki lived at the fort.
    • Russian sources do not detail the destruction of Yakutat. Tlingit oral tradition says the attack came when most of the Russians were out to catch fish. The few who stayed behind were killed. Then the Tlingit attacked the promyshlenniki returning from fishing, killing them all. After taking control of the fort, the Tlingit plundered and burned it, taking, among other things, five cannons.
    • estimates of the number of Russians lost at Yakutat: Rezanov wrote that of 40 people at Yakutat, only 8 men, 2 women, and 3 boys escaped. The RAC claimed that 14 Russians died along with "many islanders" (natives). It is likely that some of Yakutat inhabitants were taken captive.
    • The maritime fur trade influenced the role and power of native women of the North West Coast. The natives of the coast had a sophisticated system of trade that differed from the Western world's system in several ways. In the traditional system of the coast natives there were ceremonies associated with initating trading sessions. Male elders and chiefs were in charge of the opening ceremonies, which usually involved gift-giving and unprofitable trades. The purpose of the gift-giving and ceremonial trading was not to make a profit, but as a means of confirming and maintaining the status of household groups and heir lineages. Once the gift-giving ceremonies were complete, a less formal and more family-oriented trading phase began. During this phase women had a decisive role. They checked the goods, kept track of prices, and generally drove hard bargains in an effort to maximize profits. Many maritime fur traders were frustrated by the time-consuming rituals that first accompanied trade. They had no use for the prestige associated with gift-giving. While many fur traders were forced into gift-giving exchanges, they recorded their dislike for the practice and declined as much as possible. In effect, the maritime fur traders rejected the traditionally male role in trade transactions and placed valued on the traditionally female role, where maximizing profit was the sole criterion. Thus the role of native women in the maritime fur trade was ensured and enhanced. Many fur traders noted the role played by women in trading. As early as in the 1780s traders wrote about Nuu-chah-nulth and Haida women being not only present during trade transactions, but principally in control. Other accounts recorded women playing a similarly active role in trading among the Tlingit and Tsimshian. Manuel Quimper reported the same role for women among the Makah. Other elements that encouraged a greater role for women included the increasing competition between tribal groups brought about by the infusion of new wealth. The maritime fur trade created new disparities of wealth between tribal groups, which resulted in an increasing need for chiefs and their households to validate their status. In order to maintain and improve social status, households had to accumulate more wealth than other households. Some traders noted this competition between different households in trade transactions. Competitive trade aimed at maximizing profits enhanced the role of women in bargaining and monitoring prices.
    • The links between Russian America and Siberia were weakened in the 19th century due to Russian circumnavigation voyages. Twenty-five circumnavigation voyages were initiated between 1801 and 1825, largely for the purpose of expanding Russia's imperial and commercial influence. They created links between Russian America and the Russia capital at Saint Petersburg, altering the way Russians thought about their empire. Places like Sitka, which had previosuly been thought of as part of Russia's most remote frontier, came to be seen as having better access to Saint Petersburg than the continental towns of Siberia and most of the Russian interior. The colonization efforts in California and Hawaii grew out of the circumnavigation voyages and would have been inconceivable without them. Another effect of these voyages was a separation between Russians and the indigenous people of North America. Travelling to Russian America via Siberia required the assistance of indigenous Siberians and the sibiriaki, or Russians of Siberia. The sibiriaki had a history of living and working closely with indigenous Siberians and were "nativized", or acculturated in many ways. In contrast, the Russians who visited America by sea directly from Saint Petersburg—many of whom were well educated and culturally "European", bypassed the legacy of centuries of Siberian experience. They were far more conscious than were the sibiriaki of the social and ethnic distinctions between themselves and the indigenous people they encountered. While the Russian naval officers did not create a racialist ideology, like some European colonizers, they did introduce new attitudes. For example, miscegenation between Russian and natives in Siberia had been common, even encouraged, for centuries, and the practice continued in Russian America as an ordinary way of life. After the initiation of circumnavigation voyages, however, the children of Russian and indigenous Americans came to be labeled as a separate group—a social category known as kreoly (Creoles). Nikolai Rezanov, a participant in the first Russian circumnavigation, is the first on record, in 1805, to use of the term kreol. By the time of the RAC's second charter in 1821 the Creoles of Russian American were made into a de facto separate social estate, formalized as members of a distinct group of people who were neither fully Russian nor fully native. The creation of the Creole category was specific to Russian America and had no precedent elsewhere in the Russian Empire. In Siberia, legitimate children of Russian and indigenous Siberians continued to be classified as Russians, provided family conversion to Orthodoxy and baptism of the children. The origin of the word kreol in Russia is not known for certain, but it likely came from Spanish and Portuguese colonies frequently visited by the Russian circumnavigators. During the 18th century Russian America was colonized and managed by sibiriaki. Very few Europe-oriented Russians visited. The situation changed in the 19th century. An increasing proportion of the RAC's workforce came to America by ship from European Russia. The sibiriaki were gradually replaced by European Russians, a multiethnic category that included Finns, Baltic Germans, and other ethnicities. Furthermore, after the forced retirement of Baranov in 1818, every chief manager (glavnyi pravitel, in effect governor) of Russian America was an officer of the Imperial Russian Navy, appointed directly from Saint Petersburg. Thus the highest-ranking official in Russian America was always a nobleman with Europeanized education and naval training.

Pfly (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

This article seem to handle the Maritime Fur Trade as a British and North American phenomenon, while in fact it involved other areas and was not exclusively traded by Anglosaxon areas. The lead begins with:

  • The Maritime Fur Trade was a ship-based fur trade system that focused on acquiring furs of sea otters and other animals from the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and natives of Alaska.

This fails to introduce the the reader to the global scope of the trade that did also include part of the Russian Pacific, Juan Fernández Islands and Patagonia. Whiel this is perhaps the main error in the lead, the sections that continues in the article fail to adress the fur trade in South America during the same epoch. I do think that the trade migh have had most impact on the Pacific North West but to exclude other areas afected by the trade would not be fail and would lead to the creation of new articles, while the fur trade of the 19th century was an international phenomenon. Dentren | Talk 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. But as the page points out in the first sentence, "The Maritime Fur Trade was a ship-based fur trade system that focused on acquiring furs of sea otters and other animals from the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and natives of Alaska." Later in the lead it says "The term "maritime fur trade" was coined by historians to distinguish the coastal, ship-based fur trade from the continental, land-based fur trade [of North America]". There are plenty of sources that define "Maritime Fur Trade" this way, and are used on the page. In fact, that is why I capitalized the term, instead of naming the page "maritime fur trade" (although I sometimes wrote the term in lower case--if it would make more sense to always use caps that can be done). It's a proper noun about a specific historic era in a specific region. Also, the page describes the non-Anglosphere aspects of the trade--in China and Russia mainly--in detail. Pfly (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Dentren does have a point about the Patagonian aspect, though it's definitely outside the usual maritime pattern....but where did th Patagonian furs go? - across the sea to China, or directly back to Europe or ?? It may even have involved some of the same ships; but the basis and core of the maritime fur trade was specifically the sea-otter, not (at first) any land-based furs; and to my knowledge (and I may be wrong) the sea otter was not present in South America. I agree about the term being a proper name as defined/used by historians; and as Pethick and others point out, there's an intrinsic link also to the Old China Trade article, which does have a USPOV bias/perspective so far.Skookum1 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know fur trade in South America was based on the Juan Fernández Fur Seal and the South American Fur Seal. Having read Pfly comments, I have too agree that the North American maritime fur trade deserves an own article due to its importnace and the amount of information in the article. To contrinue improve the topic on fur trade efforts should be put on integrating and cleaning and globalizing the the fur trade article (will move the template to that article). I also think that a South American and Antarctic fur trade article should be created to cover that topic. Dentren | Talk 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply later, no time right now. Pfly (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's later. I tried to write a fairly short reply, but alas, it is a bit long:

I could write about this at length, but will try to keep it short. I probably won't be able to write much again until next week--going camping. The main point is that the Maritime Fur Trade (that is, the "Old North West Trade" or "Sea Otter Trade") was indeed "focused" on acquiring sea otter furs by trade with the natives of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Over the years the traders had to "diversify" in order for the voyages to remain profitable (for reasons explained on the page--overhunting of sea otters and too many traders creating a "seller's market", mostly). The trading voyages were still focused, even defined by their visits to the PNW and trade with the natives for sea otter furs, but "side-ventures" were increasingly taken up, wherever profitable trade could be found. These side-ventures increased in importance over time, but what made a "Maritime Fur Trade" voyage part of the "North West Trade" was the continued visits to the PNW coast and trade with the natives for sea otter furs--although beaver furs eventually were traded in much larger numbers.

In short, there were two key factors that defined the trade. First it involved visits to the PNW coast (and Canton, albeit sometimes via third party trans-shipments). Second, the PNW furs were acquire by trade with the natives. This second point is not quite as important among historians, but it is for a significant number of them. It is one of the main differences between the British and American systems and that used by the Russians--who did not trade with the natives, but rather employed (or "enserfed") them (eg, Aleuts), to hunt sea otters. The Russian method of acquiring sea otter furs was quite different from the British and American method. In addition, the Russians did not take the furs to Canton by ship, but overland to the Mongolian-Chinese border. For many historians these several differences are enough to regard the Russian system as something other than the "North West Trade" or "Maritime Fur Trade", although closely related. Many historians write about the Maritime Fur Trade as a strictly British and American system only, excepting a handful of minor ventures by the French and Spanish (Lapérouse is a particularly notable example of a French venture to the PNW--but his fame comes from much more than just trading sea otter furs). Anyway, my point is that many historians write about the Maritime Fur Trade as something almost entirely British and American. Others include the Russian system, although differing in some ways. So there is already a fairly strong "Anglosphere" focus among historians. I opted to take the broader approach used by historians such as Gibson. But even then the trade was largely "Anglo"--especially when looking at the Canton end.

All that was to explain the sentence: "The Maritime Fur Trade was a ship-based fur trade system that focused on acquiring furs of sea otters and other animals from the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and natives of Alaska." The key word being "focused". The trade was not exclusively about these things. But once the American (and later the British) traders abandoned the PNW coast trade, they were no longer part of the North West Trade or Maritime Fur Trade. In many cases the "side-venture" diversification efforts became the new trading focus, once the PNW trade was abandoned. One of the most important of these side-ventures that became the focus of new trading system was sealing.

I admit the term Maritime Fur Trade makes the issue of sealing confusing, since seals are marine mammals that were hunted for their furs. But of the many sources I've gone through on the Maritime Fur Trade, AKA Old North West Trade, sealing was at best a "side-venture". Sealing boomed after the PNW coast trade was abandoned, over vast regions. I know less about the history of sealing, but from what I understand it operated under systems differing in several key ways from the old sea otter trade. Former sea otter traders also turned to whaling in growing numbers, a trade which also boomed. I admit that the history of these large, complex trading systems were inter-related in various ways, and there's no totally clear bright line we can use to separate one "old trade" from another. Nonetheless, unless I've quite misunderstood what I've read, the Maritime Fur Trade is not the same as sealing. This is why I wrote about sealing as part of the "diversification' of the Maritime Fur Trade, along with sandalwooding and other obviously "non-fur" goods, and why the Juan Fernández Islands and Patagonia are not given much weight outside the diversification sections.

More could be said about the Russian sea otter hunting done in the Kamchatka and Kuril Island areas. There's a bit about it on the page, but I have hoped to add a bit more in time. On the other hand, I think it was a relatively minor aspect of the whole. Plus, the Russians did not trade these furs in Canton but rather in Mongolia. The Canton connection seemed more important to spend time and text on. I have also wanted to add a bit about the handful of Spanish attempts. I haven't gotten around to trying yet, but there were only a handful, with very small cargoes, over a few short years.

Anyway, to finish up (damn I wrote more than I hoped to!), perhaps the main issue here is sealing. I can certainly see why one would consider sealing a "maritime fur trade". Perhaps the text could be adjusted to make more clear the difference? Even if sealing were to be considered part of the Maritime Fur Trade,as defined above, I can't imagine trying to add info about it to this page in detail even close to what is already here. The page is already rather long (and should be fleshed out a bit more, making it even longer). Sealing is a huge topic--probably larger than the PNW-Canton sea otter trade.

Ok, I must stop now. I hope this explains things a bit. Would it help if the page spent more text on the kind of large-scale, semi-abstract stuff I wrote about just now--especially the stuff about sealing and perhaps the Russian system being different enough for some historians to not include it as part of the Maritime Fur Trade (or part of it in a tangential way only)? My apologies for the typos I'm sure I made. It's late and I am too tired to proofread. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maritime fur trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maritime fur trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maritime fur trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maritime_fur_trade&oldid=1195467406"