Talk:Seattle riot of 1886

A fact from Seattle riot of 1886 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that following the anti-Chinese Seattle riot of 1886 Congress paid $276,619.15 to the Chinese government in compensation, but the victims received nothing?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seattle riot of 1886.

Wikipedia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Different Title For The Event?

Doesn't the title of this ugly chapter of local Seattle-Tacoma area (and general West Coast American) history need an update? I mean the title "Seattle riot of 1886" white washes the racist nature of the event and the fact that an entire community was expelled from the Seattle-Tacoma area, first in Tacoma in 1885 and then in Seattle in 1886, on the basis on their nationality. It doesn't make clear that these riots were expressions of hate aimed at a people solely because of their nationality. I think a better title for this event might be the "Seattle Anti-Chinese Riots And Chinese Expulsion Of 1886." There is a just published book by an author named Jean Pfaelzer about this ugly history titled "Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans." Perhaps one of the reasons why this history is largely forgotten is that we don't even properly name the events surrounding the driving out of Chinese immigrants from local communities across the West Coast.

I wanted to throw this out there to see what other people had to say about it before attempting to change the title of the historical event. --Chiefbromden 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what it is called. But I think the notion that people don't understand history because of the terms used to name events is erroneous. People don't understand history because they aren't told, or don't care to understand the truth, the events themselves, not just their names. You can call a battle a massacre and a war genocide or vice versa, but the facts don't change, language is fluid anyway. A rose by any other name . . . blah blah blah. The content of this article makes no attempts at white washing the event, all one has to do is read, maybe that is too much to ask the reader in this soundbite geared society. One of Wikipedia's finest articles, Rock Springs massacre, is largely an unknown event, I worked very hard to ensure the Rock Springs article, and its spin off articles didn't whitewash history. Anyway, what do you propose the name be changed to? I think we should go with whatever most sources use to name it. When I created the page I couldn't really find an exact name, so I just went with what seemed to be Wikipedia convention. The 1992 Los Angeles riots and the Watts Riots didn't describe the nature of and/or cause of the events in their titles. Mostly, I think the article should do that and the title should be as concise as possible. If someone doesn't care to read the article, or to research the event, then a title change isn't much going to alter their perspective anyway. IvoShandor 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary article and picture

There is a contemporary article and picture here. Carcharoth 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No compensation?

I believe this is wrong in saying that the victims received no compensation. I'm pretty sure that under the leadership and careful stock-taking of Chin Gee Hee, and with the support of Thomas Burke (judge), Seattle's Chinese were among the few in the U.S. to see any compensation for the 1885-86 riots. Certainly cited sources on Chin Gee Hee say as much. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content refactoring proposed

There is considerable relevant material at History of Seattle before 1900#Relations between whites and Chinese that is not reproduced here. I'd suggest using that material here, and perhaps slightly reducing the material there (though it's not so lengthy that I'd insist on the latter). - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I see that User:Twang has marked an apparently generally well-cited section as POV and needing better references. Twang, could you please indicate here what you see as a problem? Just tagging this doesn't communicate much. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's well cited; the section is dependent almost entirely on one source, and that source is at JSTOR and costs $10. That aside, the section as written tries to hang a very complex situation on one outsider's head, and on labor alone. That's overly simplistic because of what was going on throughout the country. One example of complexity: railroad companies were hiring "desperate immigrants and low-paid African Americans to break strikes or replace union members." [See e.g. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9193]. Behind the upset of the laborers was some very cynical manipulation, including inciting racism, some of which was aimed at union-busting. (E.g. the IWW which -anyone- could join.) Labor was under seige across the country (the Haymarket Riot followed that summer). It goes deeper than just the surface. Twang (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the source being on JSTOR: academic papers are generally available through university libraries, JSTOR should just be thought of as a convenience link for those who may have subscriptions.

Certainly there were reasons for white labor's anti-immigrant (and, especially, anti-Chinese) sentiments. They were being undercut by a cheaper (and far more docile) labor source, but (painful though it may be to those of us who generally consider ourselves pro-labor) I haven't really ever seen a source that doesn't tie the anti-Chinese actions of the mid-1880s pretty directly to the labor movement of the time.

Could you clarify, because I can't tell from your remarks: are you wanting additional citation for what is there? I don't think that would be terribly hard to track down. Or is there other specific material you want to add (in which case please either add it or at least sketch out what it would be so someone can work on tracking down appropriate sources for it)? The 1885-86 events in Seattle are pretty decently documented. Although, admittedly, the riot itself is better documented than the months leading up to it, enough took place in public meetings that were written up by the newspapers of the time that it's not particularly to sort out who was saying what. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm BOLDly pulling down the stale POV flag, this should have been brought up here more than a year and a half ago by the flagging editor so the matter could be discussed and resolved. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Will be editing/adding to this article shortly. Here are 3 sources I will be using.

Karlin, Jules. "The Anti-Chinese Outbreaks in Seattle, 1885-1886." Pacific Northwest Quarterly 1948, pp. 103-130. Print.

Chew, Ron. Reflections of Seattle's Chinese Americans : the first 100 years. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994. Print.

Ward, Andrew. "Seattle." American Heritage 04 1992, pp. 70. Print. Bucketman142 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Boston College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]