Talk:Gold rush

Being Part of a Gold Rush

The 'graph

Anecdotally, a few miners made fortunes, several suppliers (such as Levi Strauss) and traders made good money, and numerous unfortunates endured hardship and privation in exotic frontiers of civilisation for little ultimate reward.

Side thought: a list of companies and individuals whose roots (money or markets) lay in the Klondike rush, such as Levi-Strauss; here in BC it was (among others) Jones Tent & Awning. The Scrooge McDuck list, as it were. The same page could perhaps go into some of those who made it all, then lost it all, too.Skookum1 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

raises these concerns:

1. What is the role of the word "Anecdotally" in this sentence? It doesn't modify any or all of the verbs! Is it just saying "I don't have any stats"? (Steven Pinker does argue for adverbs like "hopefully" that make sense by modifying the whole sentence, but IMO that's a fringe view.) If so, it can arguably be omitted as implicit in not offering stats, or said better; any other purpose can be served w/ less vagueness.
2. "Good money" is unencyclopedically vague; in any case, vast numbers of traders (not several) probably would have considered they were making good money.
3. "[N]umerous unfortunates" implies, by omission, being the last of the categories worthy of mention. But, as to the US (the nearly exclusive focus of the article, BTW), city life for immigrants and those drawn in from rural communities was pretty hellish. In constrast
   1. Deadwood, purportedly drawing on contemporary journals, portrays a miner (who shows no sign of being atypical) who mines every day only the amount that he needs to pay for the evening's liquor, gambling losses, and prostitution (no indication of whether he cooked for himself!), and couldn't be happier. And
   2. imputing misfortune (and by tone suggesting misery) so reflexively suggests complete ignorance of the strong modern subculture of outdoor recreation: even for those living in a nice suburb, a 13.5-hour, 18-mile hike, finishing in the dark, with, in the middle, clmbing and then descending a half mile of loose-scree-strewn slope at a grade above 40% (tearing the seat out of pants and bruising dignities), can be refreshing and "hurt real good". (Even when the summit has no view!) Love of the wilderness may not be assumed to be a modern invention, especially in light of its survival even in the face of the improvement of creature comforts of non-rural life.

--Jerzy(t) 21:20, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

---

Of course the article as a whole also needs to treat the non-English-speaking world. It should perhaps become part of a suite that discusses the histories of Gold mining and Diamond mining (with their respective technical particulars), and uses Gold rush as a redirect to Low-technology mining camp or Labor-intensive mining. --Jerzy(t) 21:20, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

I disagree; a gold rush is not necessarily low-technology nor is it necessarily labour intensive, and they're also a unique phenomenon in New World history (the big one right now being in the Amazon and, yes, low-paid labour-intensive but a potential path to quick riches in a time/place of great poverty - the same formula that fueled the Klondike, actually, the associated spending spree for which is credited with jumpstarting the world economy after a long depression in the 1890s. As for low-technology, in the case of the Klondike there's the development of the "steam dredges" (they look like steamboats, but they dig through the frozen muck by using huge screws infused with steam-injection, and were mass-production and low-labour; can find you a picture of you like). Like war, gold mining drives the development of technology and isn't all just axes and picks and goldpans; in British Columbia it was a driving force in the development of the early roads in the Colony ("road" being a term used loosely, of course).Skookum1 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the people back in the east actually got more money than the "49-ers" just by selling what the miners needed to stay in California for a while.

Gold rushes: Cali vs Klondike

Comment re minor revision by elysdir was In the US, the most famous gold rush for most people is the California one; many Americans haven't heard of the Klondike one. Tweaked "most famous" line accordingly. True I suppose, and it seems that there's a general fudging of the timeline, too; i.e. a lot of the imagery associated with the California rush is intermixed with the imagery of the Klondike, even though they were 60 years apart; same as the BC/California rushes getting mingled, but that's only a 9 year separation and there's a direct connection culturally/individually. "The Gold Rush" is a movable feast, and while associated with California in the American popular mine the real gold rushes, the ones where a "rush" was involved, were the Fraser, the Cariboo, Fort Colville, Big Bend, the Stikine, the Klondike and Alaska; but avbain in the popular mind these have all become fused as if they were one eventSkookum1 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Baile an Or

I've added Scotland to the list of countries that experienced a gold rush in the 19th century.

In case nobody believes me, I live pretty close to this location.

Lianachan 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Klondike in the lead/ introduction section

Ref comment in the edit summary: You don't need a web link, you can of course cite a book, thesis, .... Please use Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. Please also find a non-northern Amerian ref (ie not Canada nor USA) that supports the assertion that Klondike most famous, preferably with reference to gold production and comparisons with other rushes in the world. In ten years the European population of Victoria, Australia increased seven-fold from from 76,000 to 540,000 because of the Victorian Gold Rush.

And the continued practice of "transportation" and regular settlement colonization; the settlement of Victoria wasn't due to the gold rush alone. (comment inserted by Skookum1 23:54, 31 May 2006 (Please sign all comments - including thse inserted in the middle of somebody else's discussionA Y Arktos\^talk 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC))(UTC)

All sorts of gold records were produced - "richest shallow alluvial goldfield in the world", largest gold nugget, ... Victoria produced in the decade 1851-1860 20 million ounces, one third of the world's output. This is an international encyclopaedia - I think the Klondike rush is dealt adequately at the section Gold_rush#Rushes_of_the_1890s and it is not justified to repeat the information in the lead section. Thus I have reverted - as above the rush adequately dealt with in its own article and under the 1890s section.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying; but no other gold rush had the sweeping impact on the newly emerging global economy - tied together by steamship and rail lines instead of wagons and sailing ships - as did the Klondike; it is the archetype, even more than California (the Fraser Canyon Rush, which was after the Victorian Rush, was noted as the largest single movement of goldrush-movement of men in a very short period of time (25-30,000 in two or three months). The idea with my addition was to provide an example of the ways in which a gold rush kickstarts economies; in this case not just a region's or a country's, but the entire world's. The Victorian Rush did not have the same effect, obviously; if it had happened in the same period as the Klondike, when overseas and long-distance travel was easier than ever before, it might have had a similar global impact; it did not.late sig afer sequence broken, as per AYArktos' comment Skookum1 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the bit about the global economic impact of the Klondike elsewhere than Berton's Klondike, but it's very likely that writings on the Klondike from outside of North America use him as a source and picked up that idea from him. I'll find figures on the Klondike because I'm sure it's the largest field in terms of ore body; and the nature of the deposits were so remarkable (70-90% gold between a few inches and a few yards thick, over the whole left slope of the Klondike basin: 400-500 square miles).Skookum1 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion is not trying to say my rush is better than yours (comparisons are odious) but to justify whether or not the Klondike should be mentioned in the lead section or as an 1890s rush in historic sequence.
  • Lots of men moving 25 - 30,000 in two to three months - there is a rush almost no-one has heard of in Lamplough, Victoria where 16,000 people moved in in days (not months) and moved out again in months. The rush to Castlemaine, Victoria had 25,000 men. I haven't got population figures handy for others in Victoria, but I think they were bigger and certainly, I believe, comparable to the "single movement of goldrush-movement of men in a very short period of time" statistics for Klondike.

That was the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush that was about, not the Klondike. Getting to the Klondike did NOT involve a short period of time, nor getting out of it. Those foolish enough to try the journey from Edmonton and via the Red River of the North (in the latter case, two survivors arrived in Dawson after the rush was over, starved, crazy and apparently having eaten the others on board the vessel after burning it to stay warm, which had voyaged down the Athabasca and Mackenzie to the latter's delta, before attempting the ascent of the Red River of the North and the mad, totally mad, crossing of the Ogilvie Range. Similarly, the attempted voyages up the Yukon River took over a year-and-a-half to make it; I could go on but you get the idea; even the voyage from Seattle or Vancouver to Skagway took over a week in those days, and it took ages to make the multiple trips up the passes to bring the required tonne of goods for entering Canadian territory. The Fraser Canyon Gold Rush brought 30,000 men (the usual estimate) to Victoria, and then the Fraser River near Yale in less than a month, and more were to follow. The first week saw Victoria's population skyrocket from the fur-trade era 500 to well over 5,000 (the ships coming from San Francisco were so full that it is a miracle non capsized en route). The claim that this was the largest single movement of gold seekers may be limited to North America only, I can't remember; I think it was in Donald J. Hauka's Ned McGowan's War (title could be McGowan's War), or else in an unpublished doctoral thesis out of UBC by a Donald Marshall.Skookum1 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Global economic impact - Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1971 - its what I have on my shelves but we are talking a while ago so I don't think the facts have changed and I am trying to find an international type source) states that in the 25 years following 1850 more gold was produced in the world than in the 358 years previously - chiefly because of discoveries in California and Australia. There was a third marked increase in the period 1890-1915 with discoveries in Alaska, the Yukon and on the Rand in Transvaal. The assertion for the Klondike rush that "no other gold rush had the sweeping impact on the newly emerging global economy" just seems over the top - significant no doubt as were a whole lot of other rushes - California 49ers has a whole lot of resonances and I am sure could be regarded as significant.

Neither the Californian nor Australian (nor British Columbian) rushes occurred in an era when mass production of consumer goods made possible the worldwide making of money on the dreams of Eldorado; even products "branded" with the Klondike name (or otherwise associated with the dream-cum-adventure); my source for this is in Berton, and I've seen it in articles on the Klondike (which may have. used Berton as the source). Whole factories and shipping lines were launched because of the Klondike, and new inventions and technology come up with (not just the steam dredges, which I have a picture available of but I don't know enough about to write their article). I'm not sure of world economic conditions in 1850 and 1849, i.e. whether there was a Depression or not; the point with the "Eldorado of the North" is its mere existence rejuveanted the New York and London stock exchanges after a prolonged depression; it also encouraged entrepeneurship as people began making and selling goods and services to those wanting to go there; I only know what I read, and that's what I read; the extended economic argument is a bit more complicated but thorough and involves all kinds of motivation of people, investors, manufacturers, shipping companies and more. California did not do that, nor did Australia; both too remote, and the "world economy" not yet developed enough for there to have been an impact on the order of what the Klondike caused.Skookum1 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Remarkable deposits - the Britannica refers to the "boulders of gold" found in Australia - eg the Welcome Stranger nugget but there were lots of others. I am not sure the Klondike was that different to places in Victoria - I would want an assertion of comparison, at the moment the Castlemaine fields are asserted to be the "richest shallow alluvial goldfield in the world" - is that being claimed for the Klondike too?.

"shallow" is not a term I would use for the Klondike's glacial deposits; any defintion of waht a "shallow alluvial" goldfield is, perchance; I'm not sure it was one.Skookum1 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "the settlement of Victoria wasn't due to the gold rush alone" - as per above this is not about my rush is better than yours - I have not put the Victorian rush in the lead, but where I think it belongs in the 1850s - the seven fold increase in the population of Victoria was certainly well above what would otherwise have been expected. Comparisons could perhaps be usefully made with the growth in other Australian colonies without gold - The population of Tasmania for example increased from 70,130 in 1851 to 89,977 in 1861; NSW less than doubled from 178,668 in 1851 to 350,860 in 1861 (and it had gold); the same source (Australians: Historical Statistics (1987)) has Victoria 77,345 in 1851 to 538,628 in 1861. Australian demography commentary refers to the gold rushes as the driver for growth "... rapid population growth which took the population [of Australia] to over 200,000 by about 1840, to over 400,000 a decade later and to 1,000,000, as a result of the gold rushes, by the late 1850s." (JC Caldwell, Chapter 2:Population, Australians: Historical Statistics (1987))

I think the challenge is to document all gold rushes better, population numbers involved, duration, gold produced - certainly this discussion has made me realise the information lacking on the wikipedia about Australian gold rushes.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh in repsonse also to whether transportation affected Australia's demography in the period 1851 to 1861 see Convictism in Australia - the colony of Victoria only ever had about 1750 convicts from England in the period 11844 to 49 - no one was silly enough to send convicts to the gold fields! Convict transportation had negligable impact on Australia's population growth after 1850. Regular settlement colonisation did, but not enough to make the difference - helped South Australia no doubt - but I think the Caldwell source is authorative on the population growth being attributed to gold rushes.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Klondike is the most famous not so much for the quantity of gold (the Transvaal produced more, IIRC), or for the number of people, where there are no reliable figures anyway. Gold output figures are equally unreliable, at least in the Klondike where many miners tried to avoid paying royalties. The Klondike gold rush is famous mainly because it captured 20th century popular imagination through literary and film output. It seems that every European has read Jack London's White Fang; English-speaking school children are still subjected to Robert W. Service's The Shooting of Dan McGrew and The Cremation of Sam McGee; Charlie Chaplin eating his boots in The Gold Rush is an icon familiar to almost anyone; and many know of Disney's Uncle Scrooge McDuck Klondike adventures and associated characters (Soapy Slick, Goldie O'Gilt); numerous Mountie movies (Sergeant Preston of the Yukon, Rose-Marie, etc.); not to speak to a wide array of relatively minor writers such as Edwin Tappan Adney, etc.. I just came back from a trip to Italy, and it was easy to explain what part of Canada I was from (the Yukon) simply by either mentioning Jack London or that I was from where Uncle Scrooge made his money. So my gold rush is better'n yours 'cause people wrote books and made movies about it. :-) In terms of the article, I believe that mention of the fame of the '49 California gold rush and the Klondike do need to be in the lead paragraph. Currently, it does not even mention the Klondike or the Yukon, California as such (just the Sierra Nevada). Also, the South African Gold rushes need a little more prominence. Luigizanasi 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• With this edit I have added Klondike into the lead with its own sentence and added South Africa in to the 1890s noting the use of potassium cyanide changing gold production in that decade and being used on bpth the Yukon and in South Africa. I stilll am not convinced that the lead needs an additional paragraph on the Yukon - specific referral on is fine but I believe the points made above belong in the article on the Klondike. As it is so famous, having provided a link in the first para, people can go to the article to read all about it.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)