- NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best kopy available

ONE OF MANY HOMES,

STOrUES of DISPOSSESSION

from

"STANLEY PM"

bu Susan Mather

B.A., Queen's University, 1992

B.A.H., La Trobe University, Australia, 1993

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History

O Susan Mather 1998

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

January 1998

Al1 nghts reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. National Library Bibliothèque nationale B+I of,, du Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nie Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thése. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT

Stanley Park was, and arguably still is, Native land. It was one of many homes to

Central peoples; site of an aacient village cailed xw'ay xway, a resource site, and a place for ceremony. When the space became "" in 1888, most of the Coast Salish people who lived there were removed fkom their homes and forced to relocate onto Indian reserves. Other people also considered the space now known as Stanley Park to be their home. Several Chinese men lived in the park until 1890 when they were forcibly removed and their homes burnt to the ground without compensation. Another group, mostly Native women who partnered with European men, settled at what became Brockton Point during the 1860s and 1870s. The children and grandchildren of these couples were evicted fiom their homes after a legal battle that went aIl the way to the Supreme Court of Canada during the 1920s. The history of Stanley Park can be understood as a story of land as a human construct

-- how various people have ascribed dinerent meanings to a paaicular space over time. The understanding of the space as Stanley Park was imposed upon land that already had meaning, that was part of the Coast Salish world and home to Chinese, miced-heritage, and European working-class peoples. Yet, the understanding of the space as a park has become so widely accepted that most people do not sense that it has been and continues to be contested. This is the story of the people whose relationships and uses of the space competed with, but were displaced by, the making of Stanley Park. To understand Stanley Park is to diink of it not only as a place but as a process, of power, smggle and negotiation, of making and remaking of space, a process that persists to the present day. It is almost 1998. The fist seed for this thesis was planted in 1995. 1have received over two years worth of support and encouragement nom many people.

Thank you to Abi -- the woman who showed me the heart in history and who Uispired this degree, and to Michelle for our sea-wall wak.

Dr. Tina Loo has been an extraordinary supervisor. Her remarkable ability to understand my personal, as well as my academic, needs, her gentle intellectual guidace, outstanding editorial skills, and reliability have been deeply appreciated 1 extend my gratitude to Dr. Robert A.J. McDonald for his consistent support, for his wondeMy thought provoking teaching style, and pdcularly for his sense of humour. The critiques of my work offered by the late Dr. Douglas Cole, as well as those given by Dr. Mark Leier, have been challenging and helpful for their rigour.

An enormous thank you to Susan Roy, an exceptiondy thoughtfid and well-informed historian of Native peoples in , who led me to important primary sources and to a deeper understanding of the motivation for my work.

This thesis has been made possible through the hancial support of the History Department of SFU, particularly by a Graduate Fellowship which was awarded during 1996, and two Cook Conference Scholarships awarded during 1996 and 1997. Thank you to Dr. Jack Little for helping facilitate this funding and to Mary Ann Pope for her kind and enthusiastic assistance through the tangles of bureaucracy.

Thank you to Dr. Michael Kew and Dr. Jean Barman for reading early drafts and for giwig vduable feedback and ideas. Anselmo and Theresa have been remarkable editors.

1 would also like to thank the historians who have corne before me, whose research on Stanley Park provided some of the groundwork fiom which 1 was able to commence my own study, particularly Richard M. Steele and Dr. Robert A.J. McDonald. Thank you to Professor Cole Harris, whose thoughâul approach to the history of this province has quietly but profoundly influenced the way 1 see the past.

A good deal of this thesis was written on the road -- Campbell River, Toronto, the cottage in northern Ontario, Tadoussac, Quebec City, and even the train to Halifax. Thank you to Le Groupe de Recherche et Éducation Sur le Milieu Marin for your understanding (and to those beautifid whales!) and for everyone along the way who put me up and put up with me and this project.

Finally, 1 have been blessed by the deep love and support given fiom my parents, my family, ,-A ,--C.LLC.I LÏA-A- VA-.La-rs naam -a +hreixrrh Q ~-ma+~hl~iniirnpv~ Thnnk ynn- QLlU llly lQLUULU JLILLIUJ. A VU LLU vtabbrr rrrb uuvuerA u AWAAA~~~------,- ---- CONTENTS

Title Page

Approval Page

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Maps and Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2% 2b

Introduction

1 One of Many Homes: "Stanley Park" as part of the Coast Salish World

2 37 Continuity and Change: Coast Salish Land, A Govemment Reserve and a New Sense of Home, 1863-1 887.

3 65 The Making of "Stanley Park": The Years of Dispossession, 1888- 193 1.

Conclusion

Bibliography Maps and Photographs

Figure 1 Photograph, "BurrardlsInlet, 1867 or 1868 &ost Lagoon)" vii

Figure 2a Photograph, "Indian Shanties, Cod Harbour, 1886" viii

Figure 2b Photograph, "Indian Shaaties, Cod Harbour, 1886" viii

Figure 3 George 's Chart, 1792 11

Figure 4 Survey of Coast Line fiom Cod Harbour to Fdse Creek 12 Surveyed by G. Turner, 19 March 1863

Figure 5a Census of Native peoples living on the "Government Reserve" 48b Prepared by George Blenkinsop with the Joint Reserve Commission, 1876

Figure 5b Sketch of Native settlements on the "Governent Reserve" 48a Prepared by George Blenkinsop with the Joint Reserve Commissiony 1876

Figure 6 Plan showing Lands Occupied near Brockton Point 58 Prepared for Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gonzalves, 1925

Figure 7 Map of "Stanley Park" 73b fiom the Standard Tourist's Guide to the park, 1923

Figure 8 Map of "Indian Narnes for Familiar Places" 74 Prepared by Major J.S. Matthews with August Jack Khahtsahlano, 1932

Figure 9 Photograph of park road workers collecting materials fiom the xw'ay xway midden for the fust park road, 1888" 78 viia

Figure 1 "Burrard's Idet (), 1867 or 1868" City of Vancouver Archives, St.Pk. P. 112, N.4 The text beneath the photograph was written by Vancouver Archivist Major J.S. Matthews. viib Figure 2.a Yizdim Shanties, Cod Harbour, 1886". Pho tographed by Edouard Gaston Deville. National Archives of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Collection, Box 21 02, Album, p. 39.

Figure 2b 'Tndian Shanties, CoaZ Harbour, 1886" Photographed by Edouard Gaston Deville. National Archives of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Collection, Box 2102, AIL.., nn CUuLLLIl, y.- TV. "To the use and enjoyment of people of all colours, creeds, and customs for al1 tirne, 1 name thee Stanley Park."

Lord Stanley, Govemor General of Canada, Dedication, October 30,1889 In an increasingly complicated world parks seem to be one of our remaining sanclmries of simplicity and goodness. Among parks, Stanley Park is exceptional -- perhaps the most beautifid urban park in NofhAmerica It is remarkable that there is such a large and beautifid expanse of green space at the heart of a densely populated uban environment. Sitting so peacefully as it does at the tip of the downtown core, arching into Burrard Met, Stanley Park is a Vancouver landmark - symbolic of what so many Vancouverites cherish about their city. Vancouver is one of the fastest growing cities in North America, but still, at its residents' fingertips are mountains, ancient trees, wildlife, and the Pacific Ocean. To some, Stanley Park stands as a monument to the foresight of the city's "founding fathers," as well as to the residents' collective desire, both past and present, to preserve this natural beauty. But not everyone has understood Stanley Park in the same way.

Stanley Park was, and arguably still is, Native land. As part of the Central Coast

Salish world it was the location of an ancient village cded xw'ay xwayl, a resource site, and a place for ceremony. Shortly before Lord Stanley declared Stanley Park to be a place for "people of al1 colours, creeds, and customs for al1 time", most of the Coast Salish people who kedthere were removed from their homes and forced to relocate onto Indian reserves. Other people also considered the space now known as Stanley Park to be their home. Several Chinese men Iived in the park until they were forcibly removed and their homes bumt to the ground without compensation just one year after

Lord Stanley's dedication. Another group, mostly Native women who partnered with

European men, settled at what became Brockton Point during the 1860s and 1870s. The children and grandchildren of these couples were evicted fiom their homes fier an intense legai battle in the 1920s. The history of Stanley Park is a story of land as a human constriict - how various people have ascribed diEerent meanings to a padcular space over time, and how these meanings became real, how they were written on the land. 1 have chosen to put "Stanley Park' in quotation marks throughout this thesis as a way of emphasising that it is a pariicular understanding of space that has so often been taken as natural and given. "Stanley Park" was imposed upon land that already had meaning, that was part of the Coast Salish world and home to Chese, mixed-heritage, and European working-class peoples. Yet, the understanding of the space as a park has become so widely accepted that most people do not sense that it has been and continues to be contested. This is the story of the people and understandings of the space that competed with, but were displaced by, the making of "Stanley Park." The process of displacement fkom "Staaley Park" took on many foms, of which colonisation was one. The term colonisation is used in this thesis as a way of naming the processes, both material and discursive, by which a non-Native society established itself upon Native land and the associated dismantling of Native peoples' social, economic and cultural relationship with the land and its resocrces. The space we now know as "Stanley Park" was first made into a British govemment military reserve in 1863. This reconceptualisation of the space was backed by the colonial govemment that was making room for capital and settlers through its land system. It was an assertion of the British clairn to the space that constnicted the Native residents as squatters on government land. The space was then remade into "Stanley Park" in 1888. This was an understanding of the space that was also specific to particular British conceptions of land and its relationship to society. It was at this time that the Native residents were removed. The making of "Stanley Park" is a window into the complexities of the rapidly changing power relationships in the Burrard Inlet area. The stniggle over how the place now hown as "Stanley Park" came to be dehed cannot be explained by seeing power simply as a struggle between white colonisers and Native victùns. The colonisation process was complicated by Native resistance - the multiple ways by which Native peoples asserted their relationships and rights to the land. Moreover, the process of colonisation did not occur in isolation but with a complex rnatrix of changing social structures and power relationships. Not ail Native people shared the same expenence. While some Native people struggled to sustain their hold on the land through negotiations with the Commission, other Native people - women -- were consolidating their hold on the park by making families with European men. Similarly, non-Native people were not a homogeneous group of equally powerful people seeking to undermine Native control of the space. "Non-Native" people included the European and Chinese working-class men who also contested the dominant understandhg of the space as a park. The configurations of power that operated around class and gender interacted with those of race and ethnicity and contributed to how people understood the space known as Stanley Park and the degree to which they were able to sustain their hold over it . This thesis, while sornewhat influenced by the existing historical writing on parks, offers a fkesh perspective. The history of Canadian parks is a small but growing field of academic study. The British and particularly Amencan histonography, however, is much Bcher. Significant among the Amencan literahue is that which looks at late nineteenth century national and state park formation as a product of heightened awareness of the aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural value of wildemess.2 Canadian historians, like Janet Foster, author of Working for WiZdlfe: The Beginning of Preservution in Canada, tend to acknowledge that the Canadian national park movement was motivated as much by the desire to ensure that profits nom natural resources and tourkm would go to the government purse as by preservationist ideals.3 The historiography of urban parks typically explores the culturai asnimptions that underlie

shifting ideas of landscape architecture or focuses on the role of the middle and upper classes in establishing these parks? Some historians, however, have more recently challenged these approaches by suggesting that workiog people also played a signincant role in shaping leisure patterns and defining how park space has been utilised? In te= of "Stanley Park" itself, a tremendous amount of popular Literature, ranging fiom romantic collections of poetry and reminiscences to tourist promotion brochures and descriptions of the park's flora and fauna, has been written over the last one hundred years. During the 1980s local author Michael Steele published two books on "Stanley Park", both of which include an abbreviated history of the park.6 niree academic histonans have explored aspects of the history of the park. William C. McKee's 1978 article argues that local businessmen played a key role in establishing Vancouver's park system. In 1984 Robert McDonald wrote an article that was among the fist in the Canadian literature to place the history of parks within a broad social fkmework and to expose the centrality of class to perceptions and uses of urban park space. Mark Leierls Red F'lugs and Red Tape, includes a discussion of the ways by which the tumsf-the-century fight over Deadman's Island (a tiny island in Cod Harbour adjacent to, and ofien considered part of, Stanley Park) split the Vancouver labour movement.7 Through the work of McKee, McDonald, and Leier one learns that "Stanley Park" has long been contested space; various people have held different opinions about how the park should be characterised and utilised. For instance, some people have sought to sustain the park strictly as a preserve of nature, others have argued for a more pragmatic recreational space, and still others have tried to commercialise the park. What these historians neglect to point out, however, is that inherent to each of these, albeit conflicting ideas is the assumption that the space is in fact a park. They do not consider that which was displaced by the making of the park itself. McKee, McDonald, and Leier demonstrate that parks involve relationships of power but they tend to see power exclusively in terms of class. They do not consider that the making of a park is a culturally specinc way of definhg space, and thus is an expression of power. Those historians who do write about parks in terms of aesthetics and culture do not make links between culture and power. As a result, the existing literature on parks does not explore how the making of parks often erased previous cultural as well as socio-economic relationships with the land. In particular, the literature does not consider that parks ofken displaced people, and usually those people were Native- Janet Foster's book discusses the formation of BdNational Park without discussing the original occupants of the land or their subsequent fate. Simiiarly, neither McKee nor McDonald acknowledge that the space that became Stanley Park was part of the Coast Salish world, nor do they consider how the space was utilised and inhabited pnor to the creation of the park. Michael Steele mentions the presence of the Coast Salish, Chinese, and mixed-heritage peoples in the park but provides no analysis of their dispossession. A notable exception in the literature is Robert Keller's article on South Moresby National Park in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Keller explains that the region that became South Moresby Park, like virtually al1 of (including "Stanley Park"), was unceded land. He explores the struggle over different understandings of the space and how "the goals of wildemess preservation and Haida interests" ofien ~ollided.~ This thesis will explore a story yet to be examined by academic historians: how the making of "Stanley Park displaced previous

understandings and uses of land. This story will be Looked at in tems of the

complexities of shifting power relationships, particularly the ways by which power operated around both race and class. The primary histonographical contribution of this thesis, however, is to comect the making of parks with our understanding of the history of colonisation in this province. This idea, far £tom being the exclusive product of my

own ingenuity, came fkom exposure to current socio-politicai and academic concem wjth the effects and workings of colonisation. The contemporary struggle of people to address the injustices their communities have expenenced as weil as the struggle of "racial minorities" to eradicate Canadian racism have certainly contributed to my own interest in these issues, as well as the heightened interest found in the academic commhty. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, historians of British Columbia have become increasingly concerned with the history of peoples who have ~picdlybeen relegated to the margins. Academics have begun to place the history of British Columbia's Chinese communities, its Native peoples, and the workings of power that have created their marginalisation at the centre of our understanding of the history of the province. More recently historians have been exploring the concept of resistance and the complexity of power relationships. On one level, this thesis is an outgrowth of thk historiography. Robin Fisher's book Contacr and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, fist published in 1977, was among the fist in the iiterahue to challenge the idea that Native people have bern systematically and overtly oppressed f?om the moment of European-Indian contact. Fisher argued that the was a period of reciprocity between Natives and fur traders when Natives controlied the "minimal cultural change1' that had occurred. Settlement, on the other hand, was a period when government, missionaries, and setties "attacked" Native society so that -by the end of the nineteenth century Native peoples were rendered submissive to White domination? Fisher's book won praise for showing that the relationship between Native and

non-Natives peoples has changed over the. His work also served as one of the catalysts that brought the idea of Native agency and resistance to the fore~ontof the way that historians think about the history of Native and non-Native contact. He was crïticised,

. however, for dividing the history of the province into two absolute periods, thereby restricting his anaiysis of Native power to the fur trade. Since Fisher, historians have become increasingly sensitive to the complexity of power relationships throughout the entire history of the province. The settlement penod, like that of the fur trade period, is no longer characterised as a the of absolüte Native oppression by omnipotent non-Native systems of power. Native people did not fade into irrelevance der the end of the nineteenth century but continued to stmggle for land and resources and to play a vital role in the overall history of the province.lO 1agree with and base a good ded of the theoretical approach of this thesis on the general principle that power relationships are much more cornplicated than a dichotomy between powemil Europeans and oppressed Natives. Ln the curent enthusiasm to show that Native people have agency and power, however, some historians seem to be cornhg dangerously close to suggesting that colonisation did not actually occur in this province. For instance, Bruce Stadfeld's 1993 thesis argues that "the foundation of Nativehon-Native interaction during the settlement of British Columbia" was a "combination of decentred power, malleable land, and negotiated space." In his desire

to prove that there were "powerful Natives," Stadfeld forgets that, in a very basic sense, Native people overwhelmingly lost access to their land and resources. Today, the Iegacy of that loss lives on in Native communities and takes many forms such as poverty, disease, and violence. Surely this could not have happened if power was consistently "fluid, organic, and decentred", as Stadfeld argues.1 It is my contention that the best way to understand power relationships in British

Columbia in general, and in "Stanley Park" in particular, is to explore the specificities of peoples' experiences. Native and non-Native peoples' lives were extremely diverse, complicated by the ways that power operated dong the hes of class, ethnicity and gender. These relationships aiso varied according to the specincities of region or place.

Moreover, it is important to consider the power of language and symbolism in the colonisation process. Essentid to the displacernent of Native peoples was the cultural transformation of a Native place into a British place: how this was imagined and inscribed on the land. This making, or more precisely, remaking, of space, occurred partially within the realm of language, for culture is expressed through language; it is

"the conceptual space in which people move." 12 One of the ways that "Stanley Park" was est brought into the ambit of British imperid consciousness was through naming. To name a place is to bring it into cultural circulation. It is an essential way of asserting familiarity, knowledge, and control of space. As Paul Carter asserts, it is through "the act of place-narning [that] space is transformed symbolically into a place, that is a space with history."l3 This was not a neutrd history. The making of this space into a rnilitary reserve znd then into "Stanley Park" helped facilitate the British claim over the space -- it made it a place of white history. A British presence was declared and Coast Salish writings were ovenwitten, and to some extent, erased. "Stanley Park" also came into being through cartography. Bnan Harley demonstrates how maps are not naturd or objective reproductions of an absolute geographic reality. Rather, they are consfructed through specinc value systems and they represent particular forms of laiowledge and understandings of space. Accordhg to Harley, colonisation would not have occurred as it did were it not for maps and the opportunities they provided for "the visuakation of the land not only in an intellectml sense but also for its conquest, appropriation, subdivision, cornmodification and

surveillance." 14 The British claim to the space that is now Stauely Park was first asserted by

George Vancouver in 1792 when he mapped the area and named "Burrards Channel" der Sir Hany Burrard of the British navy.15 (Figure 3) Pniile Coast SaLish people continued to control the space for at lest a few more decades, Vancouver's visit ând bis naming and mapping of the area served as a departure point from which this place came into existence for the British. From that point forward Bunard Met could be referred to as part of the British world, a place they could potentially control and inhabit. In 1863, the space we now know as Stanley Park was surveyed by Corporal George Turner, a member of the Queen's Royal En,Geers. This map was one of the foundations of the making of the military reserve; it helped facilitate the British daim to the space. It created the illusion that the site of the "military reserve" was not Indian land. According to his map, the space was uninhabited Save one lonely and anonymous

"Manhouse." (Figure 4) However, as other evidence in this thesis will show, there was a strong Coast Salish presence in the "park" in 1863 which suggests the extent to which Turner's rnap was a cultural constnict. This map tells us as much about the values of the map maker and the socio-political system that created the map as of the geographic or physical reality of the space it is meant to represent. Not only was this rnap essential to Figure 3 's Chart, 1792 "Stanley Park" and "Deadman's Island" were charted at the mouth of what Vancouver named "Burrards Canal." Vancouver thought "Stanley Park" was an island. City of Vancouver Archives, Map. N.33 P.22 Figure 4 Survey of Coast Linej-orn Cod Harbour io , 1863 Surveyed by Royal Engineer George Turner. City of Vancouver Archives, Pho. P.106, N. 146. the making of the military reserve but it was later used in a court of law to enforce the understanding of the space as a park It will become apparent that this map was the key to the dispossession of the mixed-herîtage community of Brockton Point in the 1920s. While this thesis asserts that the discursive remaking of space was, and continues to be central to the process of colonisation, it also contends that these ideas and processes did not, in and of themselves, directiy or physically dispossess the park residents f?om their homes. Nor can they explain the more general loss of Native control in the area Naming, mapping, and the making of boundarïes can be understood as "place-holding tactics," discursive irnaginings which provided "the symbolic blueprints"16 or depamire points from which dispossession could occur and be legitimised. It is only through the combination of the conceptual remaking of space with an "on the ground" or matenal apparatus of power that the ramifications of such reconceptualisations are felt. During the military reserve period the space was not only symbolically and discwsively remade into a non-Native space, but the colonid, and later provincial and federal govemments established the legal-political hmework through which the Native residents would later be physically removed. B was a penod of both continuity and change. The burgedng lumber economy in Burrard Inlet created the conditions for a sustained, and perhaps even intensined, Native relationship with the land. Moreover, the lumber economy was the catalyst for the creation new understandings of the space -- that of home to the Chinese people at Anderson's Point and the mixed-heritage communiQ at Brockton Point. It was not until the small lumber town at BmdInlet becarne the city of Vancouver, and the "military reserve" became "Stanley Park, " that both the Native and non-Native residents were removed. The making of Vancouver brought about the consolidation of an increasingly homogeneous and powemil settler society that acted as a late, but absolutely essential participant in the process of col~nisation.~~Most of the Native residents were removed to Indian reserves according to the land system comtructed to keep Natives in a place apart from non-Native settlers. This was also a tirne, however, when Native peoples became one of a number of groups of people marginalise& albeit in very dBerent ways, by their race or ethnicity, as well as their class. By the L890s, power was concenirated among a group of mostly rniddle and upper-class people of predominantly British background who came to think of themselves as the "respectable" members of the developing settler society. According to Robert McDonald, the notion of respectability was rooted in Victonan morality: it was to be "pious, sober, honest, industrious, and self-sufficient"; it was to be white and of British or American background; it was to be educated, to have a family and to be able "to show tangible evidence of material progress." Working-class people who were generdy of British heritage, reasonably well educated or thought of as "skilled" workers were also thought of as respectable.l8 To varying degrees, al1 of the park residenb, however, would have been considered outsiders who essentially did not belong witbin the world these settlers were trying to create. The buming of the homes of the Chinese men who lived in "Stanley Park", for instance, was not an isolated incident but occurred within the context of extreme anti-Asian racisrn. The community at Brockton Point was also racially ostracised. While the men fkom this cornmunity were white, their Portuguese ethnicity placed them outside the realm of respectability, which was defined as British. Moreover, these men had married Native women, a practice that was common during the early lumber tom days but that was increasingly looked down upon as settler society became more homogeneous and as more white women arrived. 'Bythe time the space became "Stanley Park," the Brockton Point community was rnostly made up of the children of these couples -- people of both Native and European ciescent. Most whites held mixed-blood people in particularly low regard and sometimes Native peoples also disdained them.

Moreover, the Canadian government decided that Indian statu was bestowed upon children through their fathes. The people of Brockton Po& whose Native heritage was matrilineal, were not granted Indian statu and were denied any govemment assistance, however limited that may have been, in their efforts to sustain their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the fact that most of the Brockton Point residents were half European meant that their removal fTom the park occurred much later than that of the Native and Chinese residents and through a much less violent, although perhaps no more jus legal process. While the race or ethnicity of the park residents, as it was understood by white discourse, significantly affected the difYerent means by which each group was dispossessed, all of the park residents shared one thing in common - they lacked sufficient economic and political power to sustain their hold on the land. To cal1 al1 of the park residents "working-class," however, is problernatic, since many of the Native residents, and particularly the Native wornen, were not active participants in the capitalist economy. Moreover, most people do not fit neatly into a three-tiered -- working, middle, and upper class -- economic classification system. Therefore, 1 have drawn upon Robert McDonald's idea to use the term "class" to convey an "impressionistic" rather than an absolute meaning.lg The term elite is used to identiQ the small sub-group within "respectable" settler society that consisted predominantly of British upper-class business men who came to dominate both the econornic and political development of Vancouver. The term "race" and the discussion of particular groups of people as belonging to particdar "races" is not meant to suggest that these categories are scientificdy real. Rather, these categories are used as they were constnicted and understood at the time so that we cm discem the ways by which conceptions of race shaped the past. The relative poverty of the park residents placed them all outside the realm of "respectability." Yet, the making of the park was central to the identity of the "respectable" of this new settler society, and particularly to the identity of Vancouver's elite. The park residents dismpted these peoples' ideas of the park on many levels. A park is a deeply cultural concept but for those who sought the creation of the park, it was konicdly thought of as somehow beyond culture, beyond civilisation. It was a place where wildemess was invented, "a culturai site, a place where the settler [could] reffect on his own condition."20 In this sense "nature" was conceptualised as a place, as a park, as a visible object. But there was a distance between that place and "society." Civilisation was out of bounds -- beyond the park bomdaries. A park, therefore, could not be a place that Native people lived in nor a place that waç part of Native or any culture. Culture was, by British definition, not nature. While the park was seemingly dernocratic - a place nobody owned but everybody could use -- it was actually embedded in notions of private property. A park could not exist if it were not for the conceptual division between public and private space. If a society is explicit about the places that are "public," that everybody cm use, then, logically, there mut be places that are not public, that only particular people cm use. One of the primary discursive tools by which the "Stanley Park" residents were dispossessed was naming them as "squattes." The Coast Salish people who lived there were called squatters as early as 1865 -- people conceived as trespassers on the space that had been recently remade into a govemment kilitary reserve. The Chinese residents too were called "squatters" as well as "nuisances" and a threat to "public" health. The residents expelled through the legal system in the 1920s were considered the Iast "squatters" of the park. A squatter does not have a "home" but a "squat" - a temporary dwelliug place - usually referred to in this context as shacks or shanties. A squatter is one who does not "own" his or her land - one who therefore, necessarily, does not belong. In fact, the fïrst park of Canada was made by the federal govemment "on behaif of the people of Canada" to reserve land "£iorn sale, settlernent or squatting."21 The making of "Stanley Park," similarly, reinforced the idea that those who were living there were Uegitimate. It was part of a process of power that was reordering the Iandscape of the region - denning where people could go and where they could not, where they codd live and where they could not. "Stanley Park," seemingly public, seemingly neutraf space, was becoming, especialiy for Native people, like land owned by settiers, specdators, or capitalists, a space they could not define or control. The making of the place fist into a ditary reserve and then a park was part of a complex process of a group of people gaining control of space. Yet, for the park residents, it boiled down to something quite simple, loss of "home." The Oxford Dictionary's £ktdefinition of home is "a place where one lives; fixed residence." When used as an adjective or verb, however, home is most commonly associated with a sense of ease or familiarity -- a place with which one is well informed and holds knowledge. The people of "Stanley Park" did in fact lose their actual physicai homes, the places in which they Iived. Perhaps more irnportantly, however, the park residents lost control of a place in which they had a sense of ease, a space they knew intimately, their familiar. The Oxford Dictionary's second definition of home is "native Indeed, for Coast Saiish people, the making of "Stanley Park" involved a loss greater than the physical removal of its remaining Coast Salish residents. This was a Loss of home that was also about erasure of culture, for to "relieve the Indian of his land was to deprive him of the place of his ancestors and take away part of his identity." 23 I consider Vancouver to be my home - a place 1 have chosen to live, but also a place in which I belong. I am a Canadian citizen, dutifully paying my rent in a home owned by my landlord 1am legitunate. It is because of this sense of home that I have estabiished here that 1 seek to understand the history of peoples whose sense of home in this space has been threatened and largely dismantled. Ironicdy, of course, it is the people who have considered this place home for generations, whose-roots arch back millennia, who have been displaced. And, in this sense, it is 1who is the squatter -- the place 1 call home, even the little piece of land 1 rent, was never ceded by sale, treaty, or war. The stniggle over "Stanley Park" was largely about the imposition of this conceptual dichotomy between "squatters" and "legitimate possessors of land" -- a concept that is basic to Western culture, and supported by systems of power that included the colonial land system, and later, the law. When 1 first learned about the many different people who lived in "Stanley Park," I hoped to base my thesis on oral as well as written sources. This goal, however, has not as yet been realised. Not surprisingly, the densources explicate the dominant understanding of the space, that of military reserve and park, more than they reveal how these meanings were contested. Subsequently, my analysis of the lives of the park residents and their relationship to the land is not as strong as that of the strategies and mechanisms of power that facilitated their dispossession. My main sources are the case transcripts for the dispossession trials of the 192Qs,Department of Indian Affairs records on the people of the rnilitary reserve and then of Stanley Park, Records, Vancouver Park Board Records, &d the "Early Vancouver" Collection compiled by Vancouver archivist Major J.S. Matthews. Nevertheless, the written sources do allow for some exploration of the ways by which "Stanley Park" was contested space. The court transcripts have proven to be particdarly valuable. The testimonies of some of the park residents as weil as that of Native witnesses who lived in the Burrard Inlet area duruig the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are recorded in the transcripts. These testimonies reveal that the park residents understood the space as tkir home. They also teil us of some of the ways they sought to keep their homes. This source, however, like all sources, has some dennite limitations. Certainly witnesses have their own biases and they ofien present information in a manner that they hope will produce a particular desired outcorne. Moreover, the assumptions and values embedded in Western legal discourse, as will be discussed in Chapter Three, seemto have significantly affected the teçtimony of the Native wïtnesses. Another major limitation with the sources is that there is infinitely more information about the men who lived in "Stanley Park" than the women. This has a geat impact on the way the past is interpreted. It was some tirne before I realised that, without having decided to do so, 1 was writing about the Brockton Point community fiom the perspective of the men. Colonial discourse and its erasure of Native people, particularly of Native wornen, has an enduring power. These biases are encoded on written documents and then encased within archives. Regardless of the perspective or intention of the researchers, they are automaticaiiy presented with information fiom the perspective of the upper-class European men who created these documents. This inevitably affects the way history is written. Pulling the women out of the margins of the documents and of the story (as much as this is possible) changes the way this community is understood. With the men in the centre of the story the Brockton Point community seems to be mostly about immigrants making homes in a new society. But, by thinking about it fkom the women's perspective, we can dso understand this community in terms of the continuity of Native peoples' relationship to the land. I have chosen to cd this group of park residents "the Brockton Point community." Occasionally, however, 1 refer to these people as "the mixed-heritage" community. As 1 have mentioned, during the late nineteenth century this community consisted mostly of Native wornen and European men. It was rnostly their children and grandchiidren - people of both Native and European descent -- who were finally removed fiom the park in the 1930s. While "mixed-heritage" is a contemporary tem, 1 have chosen to use it since, as 1will discuss in Chapter Tbree, it is difficult to know how these people would have identified themselves. They may have called themselves "Indians," "Pomiguese," "half-breeds," or perhaps "breeds." Keeping in mind that, for some people, "half-breed" currently has a negative connotation and that we do not know the precise background of al1 of the park residents, "mixed-heritage" seerns the most appropriate. This thesis is organised roughly chronologically. Each chapter provides an analysis of dBerent understandings of the space that became "Stanley Park." Chapter One explores the Coast Salish relationship to "Stanley Park" pnor to and shortly der the amival of Europeans in Burrard Inlet. Chapter Two explores the period when "Stanley Park" was known to the colonial elite as a military reserve. It looks at the extent to which this understanding of the space competed with or perhaps undermined the understandings of the space as part of the Coast Saiish world and as home to the new community at Brockton Point. Chapter Three is an exploration of the relationship between the making of "Stanley Park" and the displacement of its residents. To understand "Stanley Park" is to thuik of it not only as a place but as a process of power, stniggle, and negotiation, of making and remaking space - a process that persists to the present day. This village has been spelt many different ways. "Whoi Whoi" was the speliing adopted by Vancouver Archivist Major Matthews. Charles HilLTout spells it "Qoiqoi" and "Qeqios." According to HiU-Tout, the word means "masks," Charles Hill-Tout, The Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume Ilr The Squamish and the Lillooet, ed. Rdph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 29, 30; The word is pronounced the same by both and Squamish speaking peoples, however, the Musqueam and Squamish bands currently use slightly dBerent spellings. "xw'ay xway" is a phonetic spelling and does not subscribe to aay particular group's orthography.

Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American MNld (New Haven and London: Yale uni ver si^ Press, 1973), ongindy published in 1967; see also Anna Bramwell, Ecologv in the 20th Century, A Aistory (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989); Donald Worster, Nature's Economy.- A History of Ecological Ideas. 1977. Second Edition. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Janet Foster, Working for WildIife: The Beginning of Presewation in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978); see also, Gabrielle Blais, "Preserving the Bdance of Nature: Wildlife Conservation in Canada's National Park," Archivist, 12 (2) (1985): 3-5; David Smyth, "The Cave and Basin Hot Springs," 3, 5 (3) (Winter 1984/85): 46-5 1.

See for instance, A.L. Murray, "Frederic Law OLmsted and the Design of Mount Royal Park," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 26 (1 967): 163-7 1; Elsie M. McFarland, The Devdopment of Public Recreution in Canada (Vanier, Ontario, 1970); Mary Ellen Cavet, H. John Selwood, and John C. Lehr, "Social Philosophy and the Early Development of Wipeg's Parks," Urbun History Review, 9 (June 1982): 27-39; George F. Chadwick, The Park and the Town: Public Lanhcape in the 19th and 20th Centuries (London, 1966); G.B. Tobey, A History of Landrcape Architecture: me Relationship of People to Environment (New York, 1973); Michael P. McCarthy, "Politics and Parks: Chicago Businessmen and the State Recreation Movement," JournaZ of the Illinois State Historical Society, 65 (1972): 158-72; 1 owe much of this information to Robert A.J. McDonald fiom his article "'Holy Retreat' or 'Practical Breathing Spot'?: Class Perceptions of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 1910-19 13," Canadian Historical Review, 65 (2)(1984): 127-153.

See for instance, Peter Bailey, Leisure and CZms in Victorian England: Ratiorral Recreation und the Contest for Control, I83U-I885 (London, 1978); Stephen Hardy, "'Parks for the People': Reforming the Boston Park System, 1870-1915,'' Journal of Sport History, 7 (1980): 5-24 and Roy Rosennveig, "Middle-Class Parks and Working-Class Play: The Sûuggle over Recreational Space in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1870-19 10," Rrrdical History Review, 21(Fall, 1979): 3 1-46.

Richard M. Steele, Vancouver's Famous Stanley Park: The year-round Pluyground (Surrey: Heritage House, 1993); Richard M. Steele, The Stanley Park Explorer (Vancouver: Whitecap Books, 1985).

William C. McKee, "The Vancouver Park System, 1886-1929: A Product of Local Businessmen," Urban History Review, 3 (1978): 33-49; Robert A.J. McDonald, "'Holy Retreat' or 'Practicd Breathing Spot'?: Class Perceptions of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 1910-1913," Canadian Hislorical Review, 65 (2) (1984): 127-153; Mark Leier, Red FZags and Red Tape: The Making of a Labour Bureaucracy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), particularly 58-6 1. * Robert K&, "Haida Land Claims and South Moresby National Park," Amerkm Review of Canadian Budies, 20 (1) (1990): 7-30.

Robin Fisher, Contact and Confict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), 103.

l0 For instance, J.R. Miller addresses the history of Indian-White relations fiom the penod of initial contact to the present day. Like Fisher, he asserts that the early twentieth century was marked by a "coercive policy of land acquisition and directed culW change" for Native peoples. He goes on, however, to argue that Native people emerged fiom "irrelevance" derWorld War II primarily as a result of their relationship with resources. J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), 274; Paul Tennant explores Native peoples' formal poiitical resistance throughout the twentieth century. He asserts that such resistance helped shape policy. For Tennant, resistance is not simply defensive, but it can also wield power. Paul Tennant, Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, I849-1989 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1991); Ken Coates's work has shown that Native and non-Native relations have varied according to regional differences. His book on the Yukon argues that Native peoples adapted to contact with non-Natives and were resilient until white settlement was Myestablished in the area after World War II. Kenneth Coates, Best Lefi as Indians: Native- White Relations in the Yukon Territory, 1840-19 73 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991); Sarah Carter looks at Indian policy at the level of implementation and explores "the tradition of protest" to agricultural policy arnong Natives through the early decades of the twentieth century. Sarah Carter, Lod Harvesîs: Prairie Indian Reserve Fmers and Governrnent Policy (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990).

Bruce Colin Stadfeld, "Manifestations of Power: Native Response to Settlernent in Nineteenth Century British Columbiat' (MA thesis, , 1993), iii. l2 Paul Carter, The Road to Bofany Bq:An Exporation of Landscape and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l987), 7. l3 Carter, The Road to Botany Bay, >Wv. l4 J.B. Harley, "Rereading the Maps of the Columbian Encounter," Annals MG, 82 (3) (September 1992): 524. l5 W. Kaye Lamb, ed., The Voyage of George Vancouver, 1791-1 795, vol II, second series, no. 164 (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1984): 580-584.

Carter, The Road to Botany Bay, 140,

Cole Harris argues that settler society was "a late by-product but essential participant in colonialism," Cole Harris, "Making an Immigrant Society," in The Resetllement of British Columbia: Essa-ys on CoZonialism and Geographical Change (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997), 252. l8 Robert A.J. McDonald, The Making of Vancouver: CZass, Status, and Social Boundaries, 1863-1913 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996), paaiculady 23-28 and 3 5. l9 McDonald, "'Holy Retreat' or 'Practical Breathing Spot,"' 130.

20 Carter, The Road to Botany Bay, 171.

21 Blais, "Preserving the Balance of Nature," 3

22 The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1996, s.v."home."

23 Fisher, Contact and ConfZict, 103. CR4PTER ONE

Oh'E OF WHOMES,

"STMLEYPARgWAS PART OF TRE COASTS'HWORLD

"home: native land" Oxford Dictionary

"There were people Living there al1 the time -- there were people Lived there long time ago at WhyWhy -- for a long time - for generations."

Tom Abraham, Coast Salish man Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Alped Gonzahes (1 925) Understanding the history of the land that is now Stanley Park before the arriva1 of Europeans is not an easy task- There are few written historical sources that provide information about the space before it became a government reserve in 1863. As a resdt, a number of issues surromding the history of the area are stdl contentious. These include the question of whether or not Central Coast lived there permanently, that is, year-round in fixed dwellings, and the issue of which Coast Salish peoples used the area rnost extensively and for how long. Nevertheless, "Stanley Park" was irrefutably part of a larger Native world - occupied and utilised by many Central -Coast Salish peoples for millenniê During the 1923 case of the City of Vancouver and the Crown versus nine "Stanley Park" residents, Tom Abraham, a Native man fiom Seymour Creek Resenre

Number three, insisted that "there were people living there all the time - there were people lived there long time ago at WhyWhy - for a long time -- for generations."l Indeed, there was a grand village in "Stanley Park" called dayxway just inside the First Narrows entrance to BmdInlet near Lumberman's Arch. Tm-of-the-cen- anthropologist Charles Hill-Tout referred to the midden located at the village site as "one of the larger of the later or Salish middens" of the area. It was composed mostly of "calcined shells and ashes" and Hill-Tout found numerous skeletons within the midden when it was disturbed in 1888? Archeologists working in the 1950s and 1960s also found midden sites at various points dong the periphery of most of the ~ark.~ It is likely that it was the people of xw'ay xway who onginally met George Vancouver on his 1792 visit to the area Vancouver thought that "Stanley Park" was an island which nearly terminated the extent of what he decided to cal1 "Burrards Channel." It was at this "island" that he met "about fifty Indians in their canoes, who conducted themselves with the greatest decorum and civility, presenting us with several fish cooked. "4 August Jack Khahtsahiano, a Squamish man who was interviewed extensively by

Vancouver Archivist Major J.S. Matthews in the 193Os, told detailed and vivid accounts of the history of xw'ay xway and the other settlements in "Stanley ~ark."~Khahtsahlano was bom at Chaythoos, the Squamish name for the place below Prospect Point at the end of the "Pipe Line Road," where his father and grandfather had lived before him. According to Khahtsahlano, the houses were "very old, there long before me." He described Tay-hay, what he caiied the main "pow-wow house," and provided the location and dimensions of three other houses, where according to him, fdeslived. "AU these houses stood in a row above the beach, facing the water; all were of cedar slabs and big posts; aLl buiIt by the Indians long ago." There were totems inside, canoes on the beach, dogs, "Man dogs, not whitemans," and a well about six feet deep for whîch they used a ce& board bucket. Khahtsahlano also spoke of a small graveyard near x'way xway and of the numerous trails that were hand broken through the area6 While it is clear that there was at least one major Coast Saiish village in "Stanley Park" and several other resource sites that were utilised for centuries, and quite possibly miilennia, what is unclear is which Coast Salish were utilising this space, when, and to what extent Archeologists have been unable to develop a clear picture of x'way xway prior to European contact since most of the midden soi1 from the village was used to build the fist "Stanley Park" road in 1888. Hill-Tout wrote that "the Indians informed him that x'way xway was "one of the largest native villages of the Squamish in earlier days ...but had been practically abandoned since the period when smallpox first atîacked the native peoples of this region." Unfortunately, this is ody one of two fleeting references made by Hill-Tout on the effects of smallpox on the village of x'way way, leaving us with more questions than answers on this subject and that of the identity of x'way way's first peoples.7 August Jack Khahtsahïanors fmdy was. definitely Squamish, but one point of view is that "English Bay, Burrard Inlet, and False Creek were not originally true Squamish" but belonged to Hallcornelem-speaking peoples which include the Musqueam, Biirrard and St6:lÔ ~ations.~For example, Wilson Daan anthropologist who studied the area in the early 1950s, was told by Simon Pierre, a Katie (Mainland

Halkomelem) that "the Squamish did not move into Burrard Inlet until the time of white ~ettlement."~ Whter villages for the Squamish were located up in the Squamish Valley while the primary winter villages of the Musqueam were located on the North amof the south fiom . The Tsleil Wauthuth (Burrard)

Nation assert that their ancestors "occupied an area in and around Burrard Inlet and north as far as the Garibaldi lowlands and east beyond the area known as WanAm." l0 Most scholars who have studied the Coast Salish relationship with Burrard Inlet contend that the area was primarily used seasonally for hunting, gathering, and ceremony and most Coast Salish peoples left for the Fraser River during the nins. It was not until the establishment of Burrard Inlet's lumber economy during the middle of the nineteenth century that many former resource sites became permanent villages.ll In particular, it was at this time that "the demographic centre" for the Squamish shifted fiom Howe Somd to BwdInlet.12 While it seems that most Central Coast Saiish peoples did not live permanently around Burrard Inlet, one canot assume that they did not consider it "home." Indeed, the Musqueam, Squamish, Burrard, and St6:lo Nations each cmently assert that the Burrard Met area is part of their traditional territory. But to try to determine if the

Burrard Inlet area was the territory of a particuiar group of Coast Salish people may be an anachronistic endeavour that has little relevame to the historical redity that existed prior to European contact. In order to understand the relationship between Coast Salish peoples and the land now known as Stanley Park it is vital to take at Ieast a bnef look at Coast Salish culture and society pnor to European contact. 1have relied primarily upon anthropologicd research for this analysis. The Coast Salish had no tribe or state or even chiefs as they -re understood today. Anthropologist Homer Barnett explains that few, if any, of the names now used to iden- particular bands or nations appear to have been used as group names by Natives themselves. The greatest form of comon allegiance was the extended family which nomally lived in one large house. A group of extended families, or house groups, made up the winter vilIages.13 During the summer, these groups dispesed to various hunting, fishing and gathering sites in a process known as "theseasonal round." l4 Coast Salish peopIe conceptualised omership in tems of rights of access to resources at particular places. According to the Musqueam, "lineage property" was "owned by individual families" and included "resource, burial and house sites...p ersonal names ...ritual songs... and other lai~wledge."~~Indeed, conternporary anthropologist Mchael Kew conhs that linguistic groupings and lineage ties were more important than affiliations with a particular "nation" or "band." l Individual and family status and lineage property was as dependent upon ties of marriage and kinship with other villages as upon economic rights and traditional identity with one's own village. Marrïages usually occurred between people fiom different villages. The couple often lived with the se's family, but more often with that of the husband. The children, however, were able to live with either their mother or father's people and no choice was pemanent.17 According to anthropologist Wayne Suttles, this preference for local exogarny (marrying outside one's community) was a central characteristic of Coast Salish society that helped establish an economic network between villages. The most proper matriages were those that occurred between families of similar social standing who came £iom different villages. The marriage tie would consolidate a relationship of property exchange between the two families that would last as long as the rnarriage endured.18 This economic network also meant that members of different villages who were united by ties of marriage and kinship often CO-operatedin the food quest or shared access to each other's resources. Summer fishing camps often included families fiom several winter villages "which crossed dialect and even language b~undaries"'~and could also possibly lead "to some change in residence."** A Coast Salish village, therefore, did not necessarily constitute a Coast SaLish commufzity. Suttles suggests that in order to understand Coast Salish communities one must not only consider CO-residencebut other kinds of social ties that defhed and maintained status:

Among the Coast Salish, the minimal unit for the definition and maintenance of status - even within the village - was not the village but the area of intervillage marniage and relations. This intervillage "community" rnay have been different for each village or even different for the same village fkom one generation to the next. Its boundaries did not coincide with dialect or even language boundaries, so that it is not identical with the "tribe."2I Through this socio-cultural system it is clear that "temtorid boundaries were but vaguely defined." As Bamett tells us, "it is difficult or impossible to draw boundaries. "'2 This basic undetstanding of Central Coast Salish culture suggests that "Stanley Park," as an important resource site, would have been "owned" by particular lineages that were part of an "intervillage community " that was not static, that may have changed fiom generation to generation and that may have included Hallcornelem and Squarnish speaking peoples. As Cole hrrïs persuasively argues, "social space" in the "had few clear boundaries." When the Squamish came to Burrard Idet, for instance, "they were not entering the territory of another people as much as moving within webs of social and economic relations that connected different individuals and groups to each other and to each other's places."23 Academic opinion and those of Native people, however, do not aiways concur. The Musqueam, for instance, assert that the Squarnish required permission to use particular resources in their traditional territory "as guests of Musqueam." "While permission might be granted... it was recognised and understood by all concemed that certain land and resource sites were ~us~ueam."2~Conversely, when August Jack Khahtsahlano was asked "how it is that the Musqueam daim the English Bay and Burrard Inlet is their territory," he stated that the "Musqueam got no clairn."

They claim Snauq [site of Faise Creek reserve], but they've got no rights. They not built how there; Squamish build house there. Musqueam just corne round fFom North Arm to fish on the sand-bar (Grandle Island) and up False Creek, and then they go away again, but Squamish build h~use.~S Today it is clear that Musqueam, Squamish, and Burrard peoples are more divided than they were prior to European contact. Wayne Suttles explains that the creation of the special legal statu of "Indian" provided the legal basis for the separation of Lndians fiom non-Indians and £?om each other. The govemment in British Columbia generally created reserves hmvillage and fishing sites and nearly every reserve eventually became a band. "The law then prescribed band membership by patnlineal descent unless otherwise specidly granted." Thus, "the intervillage community" was disrupted. Nevertheless, in spite of over a century of colonisation that has "tended to isolate lndian villages -- now reserves -- fiom one another," the intervillage community still persists, especially in the form of ceremoniali~rn-~~

Can one then consider "Stanley Park" to have been "home" to Coast Salish peoples? While evidence suggests that people did live in x'way way permanently, perhaps in diis context, it is appropriate to understand home as a place with which one has a sense of familiarity and kuowledge, rather than as a fixed residence. It is clear that "Stanley Park" was a place in which many Coast Saiish peoples felt ease and familiarity. Many oral traditions emerge fkom Stanley Park that demonstrate it was a place fiom which and about which Coast Salish people drew koowledge. Indeed, Homer Barnett tells us that Coast Salish people did not have a singular sense of home but that mamage and kinship ties allowed for "many homes, a claim upon which men pnded

themselves. "27 Whiie it seems impossible to how exactly how many people, be they Musqueam, Squamish, Bunard andlor St6:16, lived in "Stanley Park," prior to colonisation, for the purpose of this thesis it is sunicient to know that the space now - known as Stanley Park was utilised by many different Coast Salish peoples in many ways over a substantial time. "Stanley Park" was part of a larger Native world - it was "one of many homes" to Central Coast Salish peoples -- a home that was disrnantled after 1860. Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vamouver v AIfred Gonzalves, Specid Collections, 971.133V22ca (1925), 67,68.

Charles Hill-Tout, The Salish People, me Local Conpibution of Charles HZ-Tout, Volume II: The Squamish and the Lilloett, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 524; Charles Hill-Tout, The Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume N: The and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver, Talonbooks, 1978), 53,4.

Don Abbott performed an archeological survey of the park in 1955 and found a deposit of mostly sheils at the beginning of the sea-wall fiom Beach Avenue, a small patch of midden under roots at the north west end of the pool, some minor traces of shell near the area, a "well preserved clam and deposit" at the site of the Prospect Point clearing and minor clam deposits at several points between Prospect Point and the site of the village of x'way way. Don Abbot, Unpublished field notes, Archeology Lab, University of British Columbia, September 1955; In 1955 N.D. Long wrote of a whale and chipped clam site at sea level north dong the shore fÎom the Vancouver Yacht Club. N.D. Long, University of British Columbia Archeological Site Survey, Archeology Lab, UBC, November 5, 1955; In 1962 Joan Hughes idenfined a midden deposit approximately one haIf mile long, ranging in depth fiom one to five inches that had been dumped dong the side of the "Pipe Line Road." Apparently this midden material also came fkom the x'way way or Lumberman's Arch area. Joan Hughes, University of British Columbia Archeological Survey, Archeology Lab, UBC, June 20,1962.

W. Kaye Lamb, ed., The Voyage of George Vancouver, 1791-1795, vol II, second series, no. 164 (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1984), 58 1.

According to August Jack Khahtsahlano, there were settlements at Ay-yul-shun (English Bay Beach), at Stait-wouk (Second Beach), at Chaythoos (beneath- Prospect Point) and at x'way xway. See Major J.S. Matthews, comp., Early Vancouver, vol. III, Vancouver City Archives, 1934,13A.

The spelling of these Squamish names are probably not phoneticaily correct. They were recorded by Matthews according to his interpretation of Khahtsahlano's pronunciation, Major Matthews, "Memo of conversations with August Jack Haatsalano (sic)," Eariy Vancouver, vol. III, Jan 12, 1934, 7.

In finding bones in the midden "in a fair state of preservation" Hill-Tout wrote that it appeared as if "burial by inhumation" had taken place in former times. But, in fïnding no record of burials of this kind in the Squamish tribal recollection he wrote that it was possible that these burials "were due to the presence of some pestilence or epidemic such as their traditions speak of." He also noted that "no relics as far as 1 could leam &om the man who had charge of the road making were found with the bodies which fact would seem to indicate that they had not been buxied in the usuai ways." He later sent "a boxful of these bones ...the Dom. Geol. Survey Museum at Ottawa." Hill-Tout, The Salish People, Vol- 11, 53,4.

* Hill-Tout, The Salish People, Vol. 11,28.

Wilson D~ff,Upper Stalo Indiam of the , British Columbia (Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1952), 27; Similarly, Homer G. Bamett wrote that "Stevestoit..Capilano Creek, and ...were said to be summer camping grounds for the Maskwiam. This may be true, but there are points of codiict, particularly with respect to the Squamish claim.... Chief Jack said that the Squamish did not have a right to Capilano Creek and had only obtained a foothold there after they had been induced to corne out of Howe Sound and work in the lumber milis at Port Moody and Alexander. At another time he volunteered that they used to come the Point Grey vicinity for . On the whole 1 would dlow the Squamish claims to stand." Homer G. Barnett, The Coast Sulish of British Columbia (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1955), 33,34. l0 Opening statement of the Tsleil Waututh Nationl Burrard Indian Band, In the Federal Corn of Canada Triai Division, Joe Mathias and the Squamish Indian Band et al. v Her Majesty the Queen, Chief Wendy Grant and the et al. v Her Majety the Queen in Right of Canada et al-, Leonard George as Chief; and the Burrard Indian Band et al. v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al. (1 W6),3.

See in particular, Cole Harris, "The Making of the Lower Maidand," in The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Coloniulism and Geogrophical Change (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997), 68- 102. l2 Chris Roine, "The Squamish Aboriginal Economy, 1860-1940" (master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, 1W6), 9. l3 According to Barnett, "Some of them [current band/First Nation names] are place names; others are corruptions of terms of unknown origin, names of srnaller groups, and the like. The Indians fomerly did not use them in referring to thernselves, though today they have adopted white usage." Barnett, The Coast Salish, 18,24 1. l4 Opening statement of the Squarnish Indian Band, Squamish Indian Band v Her Majesty the Queen, The Murqueam Indion Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, Burrard Indian Band y Her Majesty the Queen, (1 9%), 10. l5 Opening statement of the Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Indian Band v Her Majesty the Queen, The Musqueam Indian Band v. Her Majesîy the Queen, Burrard Indian Band v Her Majesîy the Queen, (1996), 9. l6 Michael Kew, Testimony, Squamish ~ndian.Band v Her Majesiy the Queen, The Musqueam Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, Burrard Indian Band v Her Mdesty the Queen, December 1996.

Wayne Suttles, Coast Sdish Essays (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1987), 2 19. l8 Suttles, "Aftinial Ties, Subsistence, and Prestige among the Coast Salish, " in Coast Salish Essays, 17. l9 Suttles, "Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast," in Coost Salish Essuys, 57.

20 Suttles, "Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Noahwest Coast," in Coast Salish Essays, 3 1.

21 Sutdes, "Spirit Dancing and the Persistence of Native Culture among the Coast Salish," in Coast SaZish Essays, 220.

22 Bmett, The Coast SaZish of British Columbia, 19.

23 Cole Harris, "The Lower Mainland, 1820-81," in Graeme Wynn and Timothy Oke, eds., Vancouver and Its Region (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1992), 58.

24 Opedg Staternent of the Musqueam Band, Squarnish Indian Band v Her Majesty the Queen, The Musqueam Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen. Burrmd Indian Band v Her Mwsîy the Queen, 10.

25 Major J.S. Matthews, "Memorandum of Conversation with August Jack Haatsalano (sic)," EarZy Vancouver, vol. III, November 23, 1934, 13A.

26 See Suttles, "Spirit Dancing and the Persistence of Native Culture", in Coast Salish Essays, 199-208; Suttles, "The Persistence of Intervillage Ties Arnong the Coast Salish," in Coast Salish Essrrys, 209-23 0; It was the irnplementation of European law that can at least partiaily explain some of the perplexity surroundhg the history of the Burrard Nation. The Burrard people spoke a dialect of Halkomelem. Yet, in 1876, the Joint Reserve Commission allotted twenty-eight reserves to the "Skwawmish Tribe", which the "Joint Reserve Commission deemed to include the membee of the Burrard Band." In 1923, the Department of Indian Mairs created "two separate entities known as the Squamish Indian Band and the Burrard Indian Band" at which point the Squamish became responsible for twenty-six of the twenty-eight reserves allotted in 1876 to the "Sqwawmish Band" while the Burrard people were left with two. The history of the relationship of these two bands to European law is central to the curent legd battle over the False Creek Reserve. Opening Statement of the Tsleil Waututh NationBurrard Indian Band, Squamish Indian Band v Her Majesty the Queen, The Musqueam Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, Bward Indian Band v Her Majesty the Queen(.996),M. CONïZWTTYAlW CEMNGE: COAST SfiISH W,A GOKEïWkENT RESERVE, AnS)A NEW SENSE OF HOME,1863-188 7,

"home:a place where one Lives; fixed residence" Odord Dictionary

"We reckoned that to be our home. 1 have furniture there, 1have a stove and everything in the place - the place never has been abandoned, I always lived there, we reckoned that to be the home."

"Portuguese"Joe Gonzalves, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gonzalves (1925). In 1863 a space that had been lived in and utilised by Native peoples for millennia, the space now known as "Stanley Park," was made into a govemment military reserve. The process of calhg the space a military reserve, giving it boundaries and designahg it for a particula. use, helped bring "Stanley Park" into the British imperid world. This remaking of space was essentiai to the physical removal of Coast SaLish people fiom their homes and to the more general loss of Coast Saiish control over this land. It was part of the colonial land system being imposed upon the whole area - a land system meant to support the interests of the colonial govemment, capital, and settlers. The erasure of Coast Salish peoples' relationship to the land, however, was not an immediate, straightfonvard, or assured process.

The transformation of the space now known as "Stanley Park" into a rnilitary reserve operated somewhat at a distance fiom those Native people who continued to live in and utilise the space. In fact, the emergence of Bunard Inlet's new lumber economy actually seems to have brought about more intense use of the space by Native peoples throughout the "military reserve" period. By drawing both Native and nomNative peoples to the Burrard Idet area and to the "park," the industrial economy also created conditions for the emergence of another understanding of the space -- that of home to people of vastly ciBering ethnicities. Native women who partnered with immigrant men nom continental Europe settled at Brockton Point during the 1860s and 1870s, and by the 1880s sorne Chinese men had made their home at Anderson's Point. It was not dlthe "military reserve" became "Stanley Park" and this small, heterogeneous lumber town became a booming metropolis dominated by an increasingly homogeneous setîier society that the residents were removed nom the space. Nevertheless, in 1863 a boundary was drawn around the land, a boundary that articulated whose land it was and whose it was not It was during the "military reserve" period that the residents' legai-political position as "squatters" on govemment land was established. This was the groundwork for their future dispossession fiom their homes in "Stanley Park. " The latter half of the nineteenth century was a period of tremendous change for the place we now lmow as British Columbia, and Burrard Inlet was certainly no exception. In August of 1858 the cordilleran mainland north of the forty-ninth parallel became the colony named "British Columbia". Just one year later, the est signincant wave of non-Native people arrived in the Burrard Inlet area. The gold rush to the Fraser River in 1859, and that to the Cariboo in the early 1860s, lured thousands of single young men fiom aromd the world to the new colony. Shortly after the gold rushes "the high pitched scream of metal cuning woocY1 ricocheted across the Met. An industrial lumber economy was emerging, and with this new economy came the beginnings of nomNative settlement. It was during this time that the Coast Salish world was being remade into a place in which people of British hentage would feel at home. 'Ihe land was surveyed by the Queen's Royal Engineers, boudaries were drawn and paaicular places were allocated for particular uses, as defined by the colonial government and capital. Fences went up and became physical boudaries that upheld notions of private property and the right of whites to own land. The making of the space we now know as "Stanley Park" into a military reserve was a part of this colonial land system. The government military reserve was created to defend New Westminster, the capital of this new British colony, fkom the threat of an Amencan invasion. It was thought the Arnericans would bring their naval forces into Burrard Inlet to diçembark troops who would then move overland to invade New Westminster. "Stanley Park," at the tip of the peninsula, with dense trees and an excellent lookout point, was considered ideal for fortification^.^ The colonial govemment was not the only group of peopIe interested in the land that was to becorne "Stanley Park." In 1865 Captain Edward Stamp selected the space as the site for his ~awmill-~While Stamp later decided that the site was unsuitable since it was dinicult to maintain log booms in those waters, the possibility that he could have established a mill there had he wanted to is indicative of the increasing power of capital over Native land in the Bmard Inlet area4 The sweyor who set out to stake Stamp's claim in 1865 noted that it "occurred

in the centre of an Indian village" that "by the appearance of the soi1 and debris ...[w as] one of the oldest in the Inlet." For this man, the construction of Stamp's mill at the site of an Indian village was not at aU assured. "The resident Indians," he wrote, "seemed very disûadd of my purpose and suspicious of encroachment on their prernise~."~The matter was then refemd to Constable Chartres Brew, a man apparently weli "acquainted with the Burrard Inlet Indians." The Native residents and their ability to resist such development was apparently taken into consideration since the colonial secretary wanted

Brew to hdout "whether there [was] any strong objection to the portion of their ground being taken up by the Miil ~om~an~."~His description of the space as "their" ground suggests that even the colonial secretary thought itç meaning and potential use was contested. For Constable Brew, however, this was not an ambiguous issue. In his

opinion, not ody did Stamp have the rïght to the land, but he also had the power to decide whether or not he had any "objection to their peNative residents] remaining where they [were]." According to Brew, Supple Jack (August Jack Khahtsahlano's father) and the Natives on the land in question were squatters -- people who couid be "at any time removed" since he believed "the ground Ididid] not belong to their tribe."7 Though the Native residents of "Stanley Park" were living in the same physical space things had changed, for its meaning and purposes had changed: the space was understood by the colonial and local dite as a government military reserve and a site for potential capitalist development. "Stanley Park" was becoming part of a reordered landscape in which British ideals of propew, culture, and society were being spatialiy imprinted. Within this reordered landscape Native peoples were constmcted as trespassers and their nghts to land and resources were being dehed through the creation of Indian reserves. Beginning in the early 1860s British subjects were allowed to pre-empt 160-acre sections of land for a dollar an acre, and in 1875 British subjects were offered fiee grants of 160 surveyed or unsurveyed land! InitiaUy, Natives were allowed to pre-empt land but this right was revoked in 1866 by the colonial govemment at the advice of Joseph Trutch, the Commissioner of Lands and Works. Except for the fourteen purchases lmow as the Vancouver Island treaties arranged by Govemor in the early l85Os, aboriginal title was not exthguished in British Columbia through treaties. As Paul Tennant points out, under the treaties there is "at least the pretense" that Native peoples had some control over what land they retained and that which they gave up. In British Columbia, the way was left open for govemment to determine the size and location of Indian reser~es.~In the Lower Mainland the process of reserve creation began in the 1860s. In Burrard Met, the reserves that were created were only large enough for residential purPoses. l0 While many Native people continued to hunt and fish outside of reserves, their ability to do so, within the reordered landscape, diminished rapidly . When British Columbia entered codederation in 187 1 there were many codicts between the federal and provincial government over the "Indian land question." In an effort to address these disputes and growing Native discontent in the province a joint federal and provincial reserve commission was established in 1876. The arriva1 of the reserve commission at "Stanley Park" provides a wïndow into the stmggle over the meaning and control of land. Ostensibly, the commission came to the area to mediate between conflicting meanings of space. And while some historians suggest that joint commissioner Gilbert Malcom Sproat was sympathetic to Native peoples' situation, "by the mid-1870s, govemment sales and pre-emptions to white settlers largely prevented any expansion of Native reserves. " l Ultimately, the Reserve Commission supported and was essential to the basic process of tramferring land fiom one group of people to another. WhiIe the Coast SaIish residents fought to sustain their right to "Stanley Park," the Indian reserve commission gave Iegal-political backing to the idea that the Native residents were "squatters" on govemment land.

The Reserve Commission

Since the goveniment tended to create Indian reserves on land where Natives people already Lived, "Stanley Park" might have becorne an Indian reserve. It is not suqrising, however, that these employees of the federal and provincial govemment accepted the definition of the space as that of a govemment military reserve fiom the outset. Even as the commissioners bnefly considered the creation of a smail Indiau reserve of six to eight acres, their correspondence with supenors consistently pointed out that this would be undesirable since the land was already reserved for defensive purposes. The location of the govemment reserve at the enmce of the harbour and its suitability for fortifications was consistently stressed. l2 The reserve commissioners' decision to rehe an Indian reserve at this site, however, was not simply motivated by the desire to sustain the govemment's claim to the land as a rnilitary reserve. It is clear that they were also acting on behalf of white settlers. When the commissioners arrived in the area on 13 November, 1876, they collected what they called the "chiefs" of the severai villages, including Supple Jack, who they claimed represented the people who lived in "the military reserve." The codssioners explained to the chiefs that their instructions were to do everything "in their power to promote the interests of Indians," but "the rights of the white settlers" were to be "protected."13 Later, the reserve commissioners indicated that the creation of an Indian reserve at the site was undesirable since the place "would probabiy be very suitable in the future for a town site." 14 Clearly, the "rights" of white senlers outweighed the "interests" of the Indians. From the point of view of the reserve cornmissioners, the Native residents were squatting on govemrnent land. They discussed at length whether these Natives were knowingly or innocently trespassing. In fact, one of the reasons they cited for not creating an Indian reserve was the possibility that the Indians were laiowingly doing wrong in settüng there. They based this assumption upon the belief that the residents settled there after the land was laid out as a govemment reserve. As 1will discuss later, it is certainly possible that some of the Coast Salish people living in "Stanley Park" during the 1870s had made the space their permanent home after it was remade into a military reserve. Nevertheless, the longevity of the Coast Salish relationship to the space was ignored by the commissioners. It was assumed that the govemment daim to the land superseded any other claims. The Native residents, on the other hand, asserted that they had a rîght to the place, that it was their home. When commissioner McKinley "lectured" Supple Jack and "told him he was wrong in squatting on the Government Reserve," apparently Supple Jack "admitted his knowledge of the fact but said White men had done the sarne thing" and requested the commissioners to "allow him the site of his village and enclosures." Supple Jack and the other Coast SaLish residents of "Stanley Park" attempted to negotiate a land deal in good faith. Reserve commissioner McKinley, who performed the buk of the negotiating with Supple Jack, told him that he would try to secure a reserve for him that would not exceed six to eight acres. Altematively, McKinley promised Supple Jack that "if there was any place on the Met not taken by whites which he considered a suitable place" that he would secure it for him. Furthemore, McKinley assured Supple Jack that if a reserve were not allocated for hi. he wodd not be made to move in a huny, that the govemment might aiiow him t:, stay there for years but "for his own good" he should move to land "which he and his farnily could cdtheir own for ever." According to commissioner McKinley, Supple Jack was

"very well satisfied" with this arrangement. 15 By the time the work of the reserve commission was done, however, commissioner Sproat wrote that the "Indians squatting on the Govemment reserve.. .were very dov&earted." And with good reason. They were not granted a Indian reserve and their status as squatters was confïrmed. While the Commissioners did not meet the residents' request for a reserve, they decided not to have them immediately removed. niey requested that the Indian Superintendant, James Lenihan, explain to the "the squatters" the state of matters and assure them that though their daim could not be recognised they would not be removed immediately or by force, but probably could go on as wuai. They also suggested that the government might compensate the residents if they had to be removed.16

There were at least two major factors that contributed to the decision not to remove the residents. On one hand the reserve commissioners seemed aware of the strength of this community and indicated in a letter to the Chief of the Department of Lands that Supple Jack was not a man very easily dismissed. "Should the Indians be moved fiom this govemment reserve," they wrote, "we need not point out to you, if aftenvards, any white settlers were allowed to possess portions of it, a very [word missing] impression wouid be lefi on the minds of the Indians who have been removed." "The Chief of these squatting Indians is Supple Jack," the letter continued, "a man iikely to be very vindictive." 17 On the other hand, the park residents did not as yet dismpt any govemment activity in the space, and as workers for the sawmills their presence in the Burrard Inlet area was actually desired by capital. "The Indians hee," wrote McKinley, "are a well behaved industrious tribe... they have become expert as mil1 hands, loading ships, etc." Accordhg to McKinley, "it wodd not only be a great injury to the Indians but a great loss to the white man were they placed on large reserves." l8 Though the reserve commission reinforced the definition of the space as a military reserve and gave legal-political backing to the idea that the residents were squatters, reserve commissioner McKinley was right to observe that the lumber industry needed Native labour. In fact, even as Coast Salish land, including "Stanley Park," was being reordered by a colonial regime, of which the reserve commission was a part, the industrial economy was drawing more Native people to the area This may actually have increased Native use of the space now known as "Stanley Park." While Native peoples' relationship with the land was changing, and was, in many ways undemiined, it was certainly not effaced during this period.

Sawmills and

Hundreds of Coast Salish people, as well as Natives Eom farther &eld, were coming to Burrard Met to work for the mills. Since white labour was scarce, the majority of the of the workers in the Inlet were Native but there were also "Chinese, eastem Canadians, Arnericans, Europeans of various nationalities and a few Hawaiim Islanders."19 One of the most significant changes that occurred during this period among Coast Salish peoples was that the "demographic centre" for the Squamish shifted nom Howe Sound to Burrard Iniet. Hundreds of Squamish were using Burrard Inlet as a base from which they could trade and work and at least half of the Squamish population was living in the 1nletS20 Places such as the Mission Reserve in North Vancouver, that had formerly been used only seasonally, were becoming permanent villages . The arriva1 of many Native peoples nom outside the area coupled with the fact that most Native people in the Lower Mainland were vaccinated for smallpox during the early 1860s meant that the Native winter population in Burrard Met was probably much higher than it had been at the beginning of the ~entury.~I The demographics of "Stanley Park" were dso changing. As mentioned in Chapter One, Charles HiIl-Tout suggested that the village of x'way way had been practicdy abandoned "when smdpox nrst attacked the native peoples of this region."u Unfomuiately, however, the pre-European contact population of the village is unlaiown. It is possible that the x'way way may have been abandoned and put to use again in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the lumber economy rnay have brought about an increase in the x'way way population. Either way, the evidence shows a strong Native presence at x'way way and other sites in "Stanley Park" during the latter half of the nineteenth-century. August Jack Khahtsahlano's interviews with Major Matthews attest to a strong Coast Salish presence in "Stanley Park" until the late 1880s. When asked how many families were living at x'way way during the 1880s when he was a boy, Khahtsahlano stated:

There was eleven families... There was old 'Chunth' in one house, then there was Ce-yowqhwa-lia in the next house, and Ahtsdk was in the next; then there were eight families more; there must have been more than 100 Mans dl told living in the fcur ho~ses.~~ Tim Cummings, the man who came to be known as the last "Stanley Park" squatter, who lived there until his death in the 1950s, gave a description of late nineteenth-centq x'way way that was very similar to that of August Jack. Cummings indicated that there were siw-seven families at x'way way when he was a boy in the 1880s. He spoke of two large potlatch or dance houses, one (the larger) at the totem poles and one just each of Lumbeman's Arch, as well as five small houses.24 The census taken by the Indian reserve commission during the 1870s, indicates that there were two Native settlements on the "Govemment Reserve" - identifîed by them as Upper and Lower.(Figure Sa) The sketch they provide (Figure 5b) indicates that the Upper Settlement was approximately in the same place as the village of x'way way and the Lower settlement was located just west of Brockton Point. The upper settlement, according to the census, consisted of thiay-four persons - eleven men, nine women, two adolescent boys, two adolescent girls, and nine children. The lower settlement, which included Supple Jack, consisted of sixteen people -- five adult men, five adult women, one adolescent girl, and five children.25 The people of the "govemment reserve" were visited by Reverend C.M. Tate

who told Major Matthews that he fiequently took a rowboat or canoe "to the First Narrows to visit a small band living in Stanley Park where the Lumbennans Arch now stands. Chief T'ornas of the Squamish tribe, lived there."26 There is abundant documentation of potlatches held at x'way way well after the space had been made into a military reserve. August Jack recalls potlatches being held at x'way way, English Bay and Prospect ~oint.2~A white man named George Cary, one of the fist non-Native people to make the Lower Mainland his home, indicated that

"potlatches were held there der1 came in 1885" :

Of course, there were Indians living over on the Narrows side of the govemment reserve; 1 was over there once at a potlatch; lots of tum tuming and dancing. 1 was over in the evening and perhaps the women and children had gone back to 'the Mission' at North Vancouver; they were passing back and forth al1 the Figure 5a (Opposite) Census of Native peoples living on the "Government Reserve ': 18 76. Prepared by George BIenkinsop with the Joint Reserve Commission. National Archives of Canada, RG88, vol. 494.

Figure Sb (Below) Sketch of Native Settlements on the "Government Reserve", 1876. Prepared by George Blenkinsop with the Joint Reserve Commission. National Archives of Canada, RG88, vol. 494. :

. - a- PI 4 i? ,.h.q k- ir: p I In fact, Charles Hill-Tout wrote that the postmaster of the City of Vancouver witnessed a potlatch at x'way way when over 2 000 people came fkom as far deld as Lytton and ~amloops.~~ Other evidence that confïrms the continued use of "Stanley Park" for potlatching and ceremony cornes fiom August Jack Khahtsahiano who, in 1934, recognised a photograph marked "Kwantan"as one that had been taken in "Stanley 3kk." "They are Musqueam Indians," he said. "1 cm teil by Charlie; his Indian name is Kwantan; he died at Musqueam yesterday; he is the only man who would Wear that dress (the figure...wearing a white fan-like headdress) ..A must be some sort of a 'religiousf ceremony in Stanley Park," he continued, "about forty or more years ago."30

From all of this evidence it is clear that the making of the space into a government military reserve did not completely efface the understanding and use of the land as part of the Coast Salish world. Nevertheless, the European presence in the area meant that these relationships were changing rapidly and among Native people, becoming increasingly diverse. Many of the "Stanley Park" residents rnay have contïnued to fish, gather, and hunt, but the reserve commission census confirms that many were also working at the mills. As discussed in the previous chapter, the increased influx of Natives, particularly Squamish people, living in the area may have also changed understandings of lineage ties and 'lineage property' in relationship to "Stanley Park". Indeed, Chris Roinefs research on the Squarnish kdicates that the increased interest in the lower mainland among Native groups "stimulated inter-tribal conflict to new heights."3 As many histonans have pointed out, however, change for Native communities at this the was not always entirely negative. Engagement with the industrial economy certainly had its costs, but it also meant increased wealth for some communities that may have been initiaily compatible with and supplemented traditional subsistence ec0nomies.3~ Indeed, the extensive use of "StanIey Park" for potlatching and ceremony during the latter haE of the nineteenth century indicates that the changes that were accu-g in the Burrard Inlet area did not completely disnipt Native peoples' relationship with the land, and may have actuaUy brought about heightened cultural use of the "park."33 Native peoples' relationship with the land were also changing according to interaction with non-Native peoples. Burrard Inlet was becoming an extremely heterogeneous place where power operated dong many lines includuig ethnicity, gender, and class. The lumber economy relied not just upon Native labour but also that of Chinese and European men, some of whom also made their homes in "Stanley Park."

Some Native women came to know the space, not exclusively as part of the Coast Salish world, but as home with some of these European men. Trying to understand how the Native relationship to the land known as "Stanley Park" was changing during this period necessarily involves a good deal of speculation. The -en historical record is sparse. The evidence, however, does point to one very solid conclusion. Wle Native peoples' relationship with the land was changing and, to a great extent being underrnined, they contùiued to assert their presence in multiple and diverse ways.

Continuity and Change - The Brockton Point Community

"1 believe my first sight of the Inlet was in 1865, approaching it from the sea. Our fïrst view revealed an inhannonious row of shacks," begins the rnemoirs of Joseph Manion, one of many young single European men who arrived in this isolated inlet during the 1860s and among the first nomNative men to make "Stanley Park" his home.34 Indeed, when Joe Manion anived what is now known as Bunard Inlet would not have reveded much more than a few shacks, perhaps a hotel, a saloon, maybe a shop or two, and probably smoke rising fiom the new sawmill that had opened just two years before. The shacks he describes may have belonged to Supple Jack or maybe to Aunt Sally and her pmer Howe Sound Jii who were a Squamish couple Iiving at xfway way. Or perhaps they belonged to Klaw Chaw, his future father-in-law, who was living with his Squamish family at Brockton Point Or perhaps the first homes he saw were those that belonged to his feliow countrymen -- Portuguese Joe Silva or Portuguese Pete Smith, two men who had arrived with the gold rushes and settled in "Stanley Park" with their Native wives. Perhaps the most poignant example of how Native peoples' relationship with "Stanley Park" was changing but not completely erased during thisperiod is that of the Native women who partnered with European men like Joe Manion and made homes at Brockton Point. While "racism or sheer cultural distance" kept many people apart, the social &g of people of Native and European descent was a large part of Burrard Met society, especially fiom the 1860s to the 1880s.S5

The fïrst three non-Native people to cd"Stanley Park" their home were three young Pomiguese men drawn to the area by the Fraser and Cariboo gold rushes. Peter Smith, Joe Fernandez, and Joe Silva rehimed fiom the gold rushes @resumably without the wealth they had anticipated), two of them partnered to local Native women, and settled in "Stanley Park."36 Portuguese Joe Silva, as he came to be known, was married to a Musqueam woman narned Khaal-tin-aht37 and Portuguese Pete was married to the daughter of a Native man named Shwuthchalton (unfortunately her narne was never recorded). All three of them lived in a house together in "Stanley ~ark."~~Joe Fernandez was said to have lived with a white wornan.39 Joe Manion was part of the group of immigrants drawn to the area by the developing lumber economy. Manion helped build the Hastings Mill upon bis arrival and worked as a handlogger on the South Arm of Burrard Met during the late 1860s. He moved into the home of his Squamish wife Takood and that of her father Klaw Chaw (also known as Dr. Johnson). James Cummings was a Scottish sailor who arrived in the area in the 1870s. He married Spuhk-Pu-Ka-Num or "Lucy," a Native wornan fkom Bella Coola who came by canoe with her parents to work in a salmon cannery at Ladner on the raser.^* Tompkins Brew, a local police officer, moved to the park in the 1870s, and according to August Jack Khahtsahlano, also had a Native ~%e.~1Portuguese Joe Gonzalves, the nephew of Portuguese Joe Femandez, arrived fiom San Fransico in 1874 and moved into Joe Silva's place. His marital statu is unlmown.4* The lives and heritage of the Native women of the community are, unforhmately, quite dinicult to recover. Many of their names are unknown since they are usually referred to by their husband's sumames. The erasure of these women fiom the histoncal record is indicative not only of the racism, but also of the sexism that was present in colonial discourse. From the perspective of the colonial, and then the federal govemment, this was not a Native cornmunitytyThese women, by vimie of their gender, as well as their race, were invisible. Ironically, it was precisely this invisibility that allowed these Native women to secure their hold on the land for much longer than the Native commmity that was displaced at the time of the making of the park. Indeed, if one thùiks about this community fiom the perspective of the women, one can see that it was not simply a community bom of a new immigrant society but also one that was indicative of the continuîty of Native peoples' relationship to the land that is now "Stanley Park." Despite the holes in the historical record, we do know that at least one of these women, Takood, lived in "Stanley Park" prior to her marriage with a European Takood rnarried a man fiom outside her community, but Joe Manion entered her world. He moved into the home that had already been established by her farnily. Manion lived with Takood, her father, Dr. Johnson, and her brother Ambrose. Peter Smith also lived with his partner and her father Shwuthchalton. It is unclear, however, if this family established their home in "Stanley Park" before or &er Smith arrived." According to Major Matthews, the marriage between Joe Silva and Khaal-tin-a. was the "fkt marriage" that occurred in the Burrard Met area (presumably by first marriage he means that which occurred between a Native woman and non-Native man). Matthews's description of the ceremony suggests that it was a blend of both Musqueam and European marriage tradition. "At Musqueam," wrote Major Matthews, "the groom and bride were placed side by side by Ki-ap-i-lano maal-hI-aht's grandfather] and another chief, and declared man and wife. A potlatch folIo~ed."~~ Whether or not these women lived in "Stanley Park" prior to these marriages, however, it is highly probable that those among them who were Coast Salish would have been deeply familiar with the space. "Stanley Park" may have been part of their seasonal round or it may been "one of many homes" before it was their permanent dwelling place with their European mates. It is also important to remember, however, that the demographics of Bunard Inlet were changing rapidly. A: least one of these women, Spuhk-Pu-Ka-Num or Lucy, was not Coast Salish. Like so many other Native people at the time, Lucy left her community to corne to a region where she could engage in the new European econ0rn~.~6 Most of the men of this Brockton Point community, both pnor to and after the opening of the mills, were fishermen. Once the mills opened in the mid 1860s they began selling dogfish oil to the mills.47 Many of these men also worked as labourers in the lumber economy, particularly as longshoremen.48 By the time of the eviction trials in the 1920s, as dernonstrated on the map 60m the court cases (Figure 6), most of the residents had gardens and chicken COO~S.~~Joe Femandez opened the first store in Burrard Inlet at Brockton Point during the 1860s which he later moved to in 1874. Clearly these were mostly working-class men, differentiated fiom the local elite by their class and their ethnicity. The mil1 owners, managers, and a small group of middle-class professionals, as well as those men who performed the jobs considered to have required more skill, were generaiiy of British heritage. The men at Brockton Point were mostiy fkom continental Europe and performed jobs considered "unskilled." The power of the owners of capital over workers such as the men fiom Brockton Pouif however, was Iimited by Burrard Inlet's isolation, lack of socio-politicai hfkstmcture and by virtue of the size of the niling class - a srnail minority within a heterogeneous population. Burrard Inlet was "a relatively fluid but essentially hierarchical" society, controlled by patemalism fiom the mill owners and managers, rather than by the workings of strong, well-established capitalist and state structures.50- New communities like that at Brockton Point, which mostly grew out of intemarriage between recent immigrants and Native women, contributed to a growing sense of permanency in the BmdMet area. Early British Columbian society, based primarily upon resource extraction, is usually described as having been overwhelmingly masculine and transient -- characterised by "a work camp in the 'wilderness' and a line of industrial transportation to the outside world, rather than a pioneer fami tucked in a clearing."51 Burrard Inlet was not unlike this image. Young single men formed the dominant social group in Burrard Met. The seeds for a more settled and permanent society, however, were being sown.52 The number of men in the lurnber villages of the Met exceeded women of dl ages by a ratio of 2.3 to 1, yet the Native villages were significantly more "demographically mature" with adult women slightly outnurnbering men? At Brockton Point, men such as Pomiguese Pete and Poxtuguese Joe were not transient single labourers. They were marrying, having children, and estabiishing homes- Most of these early Brockton Point residents had children who were bom and died in "Stanley Park" and most of the families continued to Iive there for three generations. Pictures also show that these peoples' residences, usually referred to as shanties or squatter's shacks, were, for the the, well-established homes with substantial wharves and fishing boats. During 1888 the Brockton Point residents were quarantined and their homes were destroyed for fear of a smallpox outbreak. Just before the houes were to be bunied the city's medical health officer compiled a list of the residents' belongings in order to compensate them hmcially. These lists shed Merlight on how the Brockton Point residents lived. Included on the List for "Portugeuse Joe" [sic] was a child's chair, a rocker, a shot gun, an umbrella, a new codfish line, a stove, a watering can, a garden rake, paint bmhes, two washtubs, a Iamp, and a broom. A list for an unidentified family included the family's clothes: one velvet dress, four woolen dresses, two shirts, one suit men's clothes, three woolen jackets, two children's coats, five suits chiidren's underclothes, two pair overalls, two suits men underclothes, two overshias, and two woolen shifts. Their food supply consisted of four sacks of flour, three sacks of potatoes, and twenty-five pounds of onions. This same famiy dso owned three window blinds, one dozen plates, one dozen cups and saucers, a feather bed, 1O00 feet of cedar lumber, an accordion, and a looking glass.54 These lists indicate that the residents of "Stanley Park," far fiom being kansient and mobile squatters, were settled in permanent homes. Indeed, even the city records refer to the buildings destroyed not as shanties but as "srnall dwelling houses" that belonged to particular people. The fact that the city was going to compensate the residents financially, for however Little, suggests that they understood that these buildings were not just expendable shanties but homes of some econornic and personal value. Indeed, it is clear that the residents' understanding of the space was that of home. " We reckoned that to be our home," said Joe Gonzalves during the 1923 eviction trials, "1 have fumiture there, 1 have a stove and everything in the place -- the place never has been abandoned, 1always lived there, we reckoned that to be the The settlement at Brockton Point which emerged in the 1860s consisted of the intersection of several different worlds. The Native women, many of whom had previously lived in or around Bmard Idet and who may have considered "Stanley Park" one of many homes, were able to sustain a hold on this land through their parhiership with European men. Yet the European men were Living in what was still, to some degree, a Coast Salish world. Most of them had partnered with Native wornen and in two cases, were living with the families of their wives. But this settlement was as much a product of the new immigrant Society as it was of its Native past. These Native women were dso immersed and integral to a different understanding of home -- a more European ideal that involved pemaoency, and living in one dweliing with a mate and children. These women and men were able to make a community together -- but they were all marginal, by virtue of their economic position, to the ding British elite. Clearly, not dl Europeans were the same. These men ceaainly would have shared the desire of other Europeans to bring some of their "old world" into the new environment, to reestablish some familiarit-, tu make this place their own. But these men did not share the vision of the space as a goveniment military reserve. They aligned with Native wornen and carne to know the space as home. In 1863 the colonial government rernade the space now known as "Stanley Park" into a government military reserve. This remaking of space was a part of a colonial land systern that was making room for capital and settlen and dismantling Native peoples' rights to land and resources in the area. But this was a period of complexity and change for Bunard Inlet -- a period when capital required Native labour and Native people reaped some benefits -fiofrom engaging in this economy. The reserve commissioners were aware that rernoving the residents fiom the "military reserve" would be detrimental to the lumber economy but they were also influenced by the tenacity of the people and warned the Commissioner of Lands and Works that removing them could b~gnegative ramifications. Clearly, the understanding of the space as part of the Coast Salish world was not completely effaced by the making of the military reserve. Coast Saiish peoples continued to live in and utilise the space with some resilience throughout this period; asserting a cultural relationship to the land that was both "traditional" and a product of change. The community at Brockton Point was born of this intersection between contiriuity and change; one that was, in many ways, representative of Burrard Inlet during those dtown days. They were Native women, working-class men, and their children who survived fiom the nadresources that surrounded them and the paid labour work made available by the emerging industrial economy. The making of the space into a militaty reserve did not inhibit them fiom creating an established and settled community, fiom coming to understand the space as home. The community at Brockton Point lived on the margins of society, but they were aiso on the borderline of change -- their existence enunciated something new not just something beaten and lost. The days of relative ease in "Stanley Park", however, were numbered. Burrard Inlet was about to become Vancouver and the military reserve was soon to be remade into a major city park. The park residents' legal-political stattrs as "squatters" on government land, established during these "military reserve" days, was about to become enforced.

Figure 6

Prepared for Atlorney General and the City of Vmcozrver v Gonzalves, 1925. .

Figure 6

Prepared for Attorney General and the City of Vancouver v Gonralves, 1925.

- --C- <:-y.?-,-- :-:-ywt:: . 2d -:-*.;j-.--;-.-: ..- _.* - . . - ..<-s ----r...... f.. .- *-- - - .-_. -_.

Robert A.J. McDonald, Making Vmcouver: Class, Status and Socid Boundaries, 18634913 (Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 1996), xi.

R. Mike Steele, The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation: The First 100 Years (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 1988), 3,s.

Logging was ciilried out in Stanley Park nom 1865 until 1886. Captain Edward Stamp succeed in clea~g100 acres. See Richard M. Steele, neStanley Park Explorer (Vancouver: Whitecap Books, 1985), 14. At nrst trees near the shore were cut down and allowed to fd into the water to be towed to the dl. As logging was pushed inland oxen were used to haul the logs dong skidroads (mud roads covered with planks). According to Cole Harris, there were "five logging camps at diEcrent times in present-day Stanley Park, each with a bunkhouse (and perhaps a cookhouse), stables for oxen ... Such operations were expensive, a principal skid road itself might cost almost $1,000," Cole Hamis, "The Making of the Lower Mainland, in The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essa-ys on Colonialism and Geogmphical Change (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997), 98.

Steele, The Stanley Park Explorer, 14.

J. B. Launders to Arthur Birch, Colonial Secretary, June 3, 1865, Colonial Correspondence, 3- 1 343, 969, British Columbia Archives and Records Service (BCARS).

Notes from Arthur Birch, Colonial Secretary, June 6, 1865, Colonial Correspondence, B-1343,969, BCARS.

Chartres Brew to Colonial Secretary, June 7, 1865, Colonial Correspondence, B-13 11, 194, BCARS.

Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland," 85,86.

Paul Tennant, Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 199 1), 3 0.

Chris Roine, "The Squamish Aboriginal Economy, 1860-1940" (master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, 1996), 14.

Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland," 90-2. l2 Department of Indian Affairs, National Archives of Canada ('AC), RG10, vol. 3639, file 7416. l3 AC. Anderson Diary as Indian Reserve Commissioner, 13 November, 1876, Vancouver Public Library Special Collections CVpLSC).

l4 Arch McKinley, Provincial Commissioner and G.M. Sproat Joint Commissioner to The Chief Commissioner, Department of Lands, 17 November, 1876, Department of Lands, BCARS, GR1441, file 2828/76.

Arch McKinley, Journal, November 17,1876, BCARS, EC M2 1A, Part I,10,11. l6 Alex C. Anderson, Arch McKinley, and G.M. Sproat to James Lenihan, Indian Superintendent, 27 November, 1876, NAC, RG10,3639,7416. l7 Arch McKinley, Provincial Commissioner and G.M. Sproat Joint Commissioner to The Chief Commissioner, Department of Lands, 17 November, 1876, Department of Lands, BCARS, GR1441, file 2828/76. Apparently Supple Jack had quite a reputation. Mrs. Crakanthorp, an early Vancouver non-Native settler, told Major Matthews that she "had never met hirn, but ofien heard of him. Whether he deserved it or not 1 do not know but Supplejack was known as a 'bad' Indian. I know a woman -- a great big Irish woman -- who helped Constable Jonathan Miller to arrest him near the Hastings Sawmill; he was getting away from Miller. They never could catch him; 1think that was why he was called 'Supple Jack'; he was clever in slipping away. 1 know my mother used to caution me, Tuow dont go far away, because Supplejack's around.' 1 was fiightened to death of Indianç." Major J.S. Matthews, comp., "Conversation with Ms. Crakanthorp," in EarZy Vancouver, vol. IV, 151. l8Arch McKinley, Journal., November 17, 1876, BCARS, EC M21A, Part I,12. l9 Robert A.J. McDonald, "Lumber Society on the Industrial Frontier: Burrard Met, 1863-1886," LabotidLe Travail, 33 (Spring 1994): 76.

20 Roine, "The Squamish Aboriginal Economy," 9.

21 For more on changing dernographics in Burrard Inlet see Cole Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland, " 90.

22 Charles Hill-Tout, The Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Vol. N: The Sechelt and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 54, see also Chapter One.

23 Major J.S. Matthews, comp., "Memo of Conversations witb August Jack Haatsalano(sic)." in EarZy Vancouver, vol. III, January 12, 1934,7.

24 Don Abbott, Unpublished field notes, Archeology Lab, University of British Columbia, September 1955.

25 George Blenkinsop with the Joint Reserve Commission, Census, British Columbia Indians, 1876-1877, Department of Indian Affairs, NAC, RG88, vol. 494.

26 Major J.S. Matthews, comp., "Conversation with Reverend C. M. Tate," Earl' Vancouver, vol. II, 135.

27 Matthews, "Conversation with August Jack Haatsdano," vol. III, 13A.

28 Matihews, "Conversation with George Cary", Emly Vancouver, vol. II, 1932,22,23, 216.

29 Charles HU-Tout, The Salish Peopk, Ine Local Con~ibutionof Charles Hill-Tout, Volume Il: neSquamish and the Lilloett, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 48,9.

30 Matthews, EarZy Vancouver, vol. III, January 10, 1934,2.

Roine, "The Squamish Aboriginal Econorny," 12,13.

32 There is trernendous debate arnong academics as to the effects of involvement in the capitalist economy on Native peoples. Martin Robin argues that Native peoples were an expIoited reserve labour force that was virtually irrelevant to the Bntish Columbian economy. Martin Robin, The Rush for Spoils: the Company Province, 1871-1933 (Toronto: McClelIand and Stewart, 1972); Rolf Knight's suggests that Native peoples were not shunled off into some form of "reserve dependence" or "reserve irrelevance" but that the overwhelming majority of Natives, at least until 1930, were integrai to the British Columbian economy. Rolf Knight, Indians ut Work: An Informal History of Native-Indiun Labour in British Columbia, 1858-1930 (Vancouver: New Star Books, 1978); In 1992 John Lutz agrees with Knight's basic argument, but according to Lutz, Native peoples reached their peak importance in the provincial economy by the late 1880s. Lutz's work also suggests that Native people largely chose when diey would both enter and leave the labour force and that they often utilised the capitalist economy to e~chcultural activities such as potlatching. John Lutz, "After the Fur Trade: The Aboriginal Labouring Class of British Columbia, 184%1890," Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, 3 (1992): 69-93; Tina Loo argues that Native peoples involvernefit in seasonal labour in resource industries contributed to economic and cultural continuity. Tina Loo, "Dan Cramner's Potlatch: Law as Coercion, Symbol and Rhetonc in British Columbia, 1884-195 1," Canadian Historical Review 73 (1992): 125- 167.

33 Homer Bamett thought that new wealth generated by involvernent in the European based economy may have transformed the historïc practice of gift-giving at feasts into intervillage occasions, as discussed in Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland," 77.

34 As cited in T'ransCript, Attorney General of Canada and the Ci@ of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1925), National Archives of Canada, RG 125, vol. 523, file 5074,28.

35 Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland," 97. According to Robert McDonalds interpretation of the 1881 census, "approximately forty percent of the \men and children of Moodyville and Grande were either of Native or Mixed-Blood ancestry," Robert A.J. McDonald, "Lumber Society," 81- 2.

36 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v A@ed GonzaZves (1925), 68,73,74, 85,86.

37 "Joseph Silvey, of Granville, B.I., 'Portugese (sic) Joe,' No. 1, 1836-1902," Major Mutthews Photogmph Collection, City of Vancouver Archives, Port. P. 656, N. 269.

38 Tramcript, Attorney Generd of Canada and the Ci& of Vancouver v Alfied GonzaZves (1925), 70,78, 117.

39 The name of Portuguese Joe Fernandez's wifk is unlmown. One witness in the Gonzalves" case, however, testified that he lived with a white woman. Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v AlRed Gonzalves (1925), 88.

40 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1925), 6,28,37,39,40,44,50,55,64; see dso, Wilton Hyde, "Lat Man in the Park," BC Maguzine, 6 July, 1957 and Mac Reynold, "Park Squatter's Getting Lonely," The Vancouver Sun, 10 May, 1955.

Major IS. Matthews, cornp., Conversations with Khahtsohlano (Vancouver: City of Vancouver Archives, 1955), 64.

42 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v A@ed GomaIves (l925), 59,96,98.

43 One of the judges during the 1920s case concluded that Takood's family had lived in "Stanley Park" since "tirne immemorial" or at least "for a substantial period of time prior to Manion's arrival ... antedating the gold rush of 1858," Reason for Judgement, Judge J.A. Martin, Transcnpt, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1 9X), 9 8- 1 00. Two Native witnesses, Emma Gonzalves and Ambrose Johnson, testified that upon the amival of Europeans, Brocktori Point was home to Klaw Chaw or Dr. Johnson, another man named Marshall, Indian Charlie and Policeman Tom who lived in three buildings that were also utilised as "Indian dance houses." These people left their homes in the 1860s and moved to "the other side of Hastings Mill" since, as Ambrose Johnson (Klaw Chaw's son) testined "that is where the Indians used to live, there." It is unclear firom this evidence if these Native people left the space and moved to an "Indian village" of their own fiee will, or if they were compelled to move to an Manreserve. Nevertheless, this evidence indicates that Takood and her father KIaw Chaw lived in "Stanley Park" prior to Manion's arrival, Transcript, Atiorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cumrnings, (1925), 39.

44 While it is clear that Peter Smith (Sr.) lived at Brockton Point with Shwuthchalton and his wife Shwuthchalton's daughter, it is unclear as to whether or not Shwuthchalton's family lived their prior to this partnership. According to Tom Abraham, a Native witness for the case, Shwuthchalton "was before up at and when his daughter came here he came here." Later Abr- testified that "Portugese (sic) Pete carne fust. Shwuthchalton's residence was at , another residence was at Kitsilano, it was after Portugese (sic) Pete came there that Shwuthchalton came there." Abraham also agreed with the lawyers' statement that "When Shwuthchalton was residing there he only lived in between times and went away on his other business." Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the Ci@ of Vancouver v Alfied Gomalves (1925), 76,77.

45 "Joseph Silvey, of Granville, B.I., 'Portugese (sic) Joe,' No. 1, 1836-lgO2," Major Matthews Photograph Collection, City of Vancouver Archives, Port. P. 656, N. 269.

46 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1Es), 55, 64; see also, Hyde, "Last Man in the Park," and Reynold, "Park Squatter's Getting Lonely. "

47 The testirnony of Tom Abraham, a Native witness for the Gonzalves case, indicates that "the fishermen" arrived in Stanley Park before the gold rush. Thomas Fisher, another Native witness spoke of the wharves and boats they used to land their fish. When asked "what they were really engaged in doing," he responded, "fishing, yes." Emma Godves was asked about the economic lives of the first non-Native residents of "Stanley Park", Smith, and Silva: "Both these men were fishermen weren't they?" "Yes, they were fishermen," she replied, "they were getting fish, fishing, and they would. ..sel1 the fish oil - dogfish." "Where would they se11 it?" she was asked. "They wodd sell it to the mil1... They have been there long ago before they staaed to sell oil," Transcript, Attorney-General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gonzalves, 61,68, 99, 106.

48 According to Mrs. Cdanthorp, one of Vancouver's early non-Native residents who was inte~ewedby Major Matthews, Joe Gonzalves was a fisherman and a longshoreman. Matthews, EarZy Vancouver, vol. IV, 161; One of the lawyers fkom the eviction case asked Native witness Emma Gonzalves, "What were they doing then, just fishing, or did they ever work in lumber or Logging camps?" "They were working somewhere as everybody else was working," responded Ms. Gonzalves. Attorney-General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Godves,87,88.

49 While one of the witnesses indicated that Joe Godves "raised a few vegetables, and got a piece of ground and made a garden," it is also possible that the wornen were mostly responsible for the gardens, Transcript, Attorney-General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gonzalves, 102,106.

50 Robert A.J. McDonald, Making Voncouver: CZass, Status and Social Boundaries, 18634913 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996), 3-32.

51 Harris, "Making an Immigrant Society," in The Resettlernent of British Columbia, 257

52 McDonald, Making Vrmcouver, 8,19.

53 McDonald, Making Vancouver, 17.

54 Major J.S. Matthews, cornp., "Smallpox (Hartney Papas)," Topical Files, City of Vancouver Archives.

55 Transcript, Attorney-General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gomalves, 99. rZIE ikîMUNG OF "STRhZEY PARg": TEE H!WLS OF DISPOSSESSION,

1888-1931

"park: a large enclosure priviIeged for wild beasts of chace (sic) either by prescription or the King7s grant'l

1st edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, Edinbugh7 177 1 The making of the space we now know as "Stanley Park into a military reserve in 1863 was an assertion of British colonial power over Coast Safish land. In' 1888 the space was renarned, remapped, and redefhed according to another cdturally specinc understanding of space, that of the park. Burrard Met was no longer a small lumber town. It was quickly becoming a major urban centre occupied by an increasingly homogeneous and powerfül group of settlers who had a strong desire to create a familiar world in an Ullfamiliar place. This park was to be a place of leisure, a place set apart for the developing settler society. For the emerging business elite and the investors they were hophg to attract, "Stanley Park" was indicative of a city on the rise.

The making of "StanIey Park", however, did not corne easy. Native people continued to live in and assert a claim to the land. Moreover, by the time of the creation of the park in 1888, the mixed-heritage community had been settled at Brockton Point for nearly thcee decades. The expanding industrial econorny had dso fostered the creation of yet another community in "the park," that of Chinese men who built homes at Anderson's Point. Al1 of these people struggled to sustain their hold on the land. Their presence in the "park" challenged the elite's claim to the space; it contradicted the boundaries that had been drawn and the definition of the kinds of activities that codd occur there. Making the park a realiv meant reshaping peoples' ideas about how the space was understood. This involved the discursive erasure of Native peoples' relationship to the land, a process which occurred largely through language and symbolism, as well as the physical removal of the people who called the place home. By 1888, the groundwork for the removal of the Coast Salish residents had already been laid down. Almost al1 of the Native people in the Lower Mainland were living on Indian reserves with very little access to surrounding land or resources. Moreover, during the 1870s the

Indian reserve commission had established that "Stanley Park" was govemment land to which Native people had no right. The city elite was able to rely upon the legal-poli.ticaI construction as well as the apparatuses of law enforcement and state power to expel most of the Coast Salish residents.

The ability of the other park residents to sustain their hold on the land was also diminishing. The growth of the city had meant the growth of an underclass, one that was rnarginalised largely dong the lines of race/ethnicity and class. The residents of what had just become "Stanley Park" were a part of this underclass. They were alI poor ad, to those who saw themelves as the "respectable" mernbers of this new settler society, all of the park residents - Chinese, Native, mainland European, and their "ha-breed" children - were considered people who did not belong. This chapter will explore the making of "Stanley Park" within the context of the emergence of the city of Vancouver. It will look at some of the discursive and matenal strategies that were employed to reinvent the space according to an understanding of land use that was both culturally and class specific. In pdcular, it will focus on the various strategies that were utilised to dispossess the "park" residents and will consider how and why these strategies dBered according to the race/ethnicity of each group.

From Lumber Town to Major Metropoh

The making of "Stanley Park" must be understood within the context of the dramatic socio-econornic changes occurring at a dizqing Pace in the Burrard Inlet area during the 1880s. Shortly after the CPR announced plans to teminate its transcontinental line at Cod Harbour in 1884, the small village of Granville quickly transformed into the city of Vancouver. In 1884 Burrard Inlet had a population of about nine hundred; by 1886, the year the city was incorporated, the population had doubled. By the end of the decade there were almost fourteen thousand people in Vancouver. l The CPR land deal brought forth an exhaordinq economic boom. The focw of economic activity shifted from "servicing the lurnber industry to servicing urban growth."2 Rapid economic growth meant rapid socio-cultural change for Burrard Inlet. Thousands of people ranging fkom prominent Victoria businessmen to workers flocked to the city looking for opportunities and a new and better We. The heightened wealth generated by the flourishing economy, however, tended to go to the few rather than to the many. Vancouver was quickly becoming a place that "economically favoured an elite of businessmen who commanded the organkational ski11 and access to capital required for successfd boosterism."3 Vancouver's elite predominantly consisted of white businessmen of British cultural heritage. Their power was immense. The relatively rootless, transient, and mobile character of this young city -- carry-overs from Burrard Inlet's very recent frontier past - made it dïfEcult for working people to organise or pose any coherent challenge to their authonty.4 The power of the business elite was Merconsolidated by their monopolisation of city politics. The fact that David Oppenheimer, the city's mayor fkom 1888 to 1891, was also the president of the second largest property holding Company in the city, is indicative of the extent to which the business elite controlled the political development of the young city. This political monopoly was ensured by the implementation of a large minimum property ownership requirement for po litical candidacy? It was Vancouver's powerful business elite who also came to control the Vancouver Parks Board fkom its inception in 1888 until derthe turn-of-the-century.6 The making of "Stanley Park" was part of the land system being imposed on the space by the elite's desire to boost a major new city. In fact, the fist resolution passed by the first Vancouver City Council in 1886 was that which expressed the intention to create a public park at the site of the government military reserve. There is a general agreement arnong historians who have studied "Stanley Park" that the original motivation for its creation was primarily economic. The three men who most actively pushed for the creation of the park, including soon-to-be mayor David Oppenheimer, were highly involved in promoting local land sales. "As an attraction for tourists and visitors to the city", these men felt that the park had "what might be termed a commercial value." But beyond this economic motivation, "Stanley Park" was also an expression of a particular kind of land use that was specinc to both the class and culturd heritage of this elite. The guiding principle behind park board policy fiom 1888 utii the tum-of-the-cenhiry was that parks were to be lefi in a state of nature! This romantic understanding of what was a park has a long history in Western, and particularly British culture, that can be traced back to the elite ongins of parks as private huuting estates or naturai preserves for nobility. Robert McDonald has shown that the understanding of a park as a place that preserves nature was one that was also specinc to Vancouver's elite. Working and middle-class people, even of the same cultural background, often did not share this understanding of the park. Particularly after the tum-of-the-century, working-class people asserted a strong desire for a more fuoctional and recreational park space.9 In denning "Stanley Park" as a place to be used principally for the passive enjoyment and appreciation of nature preserved, "Stanely Park" was a place made for the ciw's predominantly British settler comunity, but particularly for its elite. At precisely the same tirne as "Stanley Park" was being made by and for this particular group of settlers, the shores of Burrard Inlet, including "Stanley Park," were becoming somewhat of a magnet for marginalised peoples. By the 1890s the number of relatively poor people who lived in watemont dwellings had skyrocketed. According to Ji11 Wade, "shacks, floathouses, and tents dong the foreshore" had aIways been an important form of housing for both Native and nomNative people in early Vancouver -- part of the "frontier, resource-based settlernent built in the 1860s." Living on the shores of Burrard Inlet during those early resource boom days provided the advantages of being close to water transportation and the saw mills. By the 1890s, however, many of these people were living there because they had no other options. The "unempioyment, high land values, and rising rents" of the 1890s depression meant many people codd not find suitable ho~sing.~~In the end, urbanization and economic growth had made the poor more visible. Native and Chinese peoples were among the worst hit by these ciramatic socio- economic changes. Having worked almost exclusively as low or semi-skilled Iabourers during the lumber town days meant that Native and Chinese workers were the most vulnerable to competition in the labour market -- competition they felt as the city's population skocketed. This problem was compounded when -white workers and members of the "respectable" British settler community began to organise and lobby for the replacement of Chinese with European labour. If a Native or Chinese person attempted to make a Living by any means other than what was perceived as "low-skill" work, he or she would have corne up against innumerable barriers. Unlike white settlers, both Chinese and Native peoples were legally prohibited from pre-empting land and prohibited fiom working in any occupation that required a provincial licence. The brief penod of relative ease and limited integration between Europeans, Natives, and other peoples of various ethnicities was giWig way to a period of heightened discrimination and racial tension. The new white rnajonty of almost entirely British background had a strong desire to create a familiar world in this foreign place. Fueled by nineteenth-century ideas of the inherent superiority of British civilisation, this group gathered sufncient material power to make their desire a reality. Both Native and Chinese peoples were required to live in a "place apart." Native people -- thought to be vanishing, both in actual numbers and in terxns of the vitality of their culture -- were relegated to Indian reserves. Chinese people, on the other hand, were thought to be far too numerous, unable to assimilate, and a much greater threat to white society. Vimially every strata of Vancouver's white population actively sought to send dl Chinese people back "to the place £iom whence they carne" and to ensure that no others arrived.ll Short of meeting this goal, Chinese people were relegated to the spatial margins of the city. Partnenhips between Native women and Eirropean men, especially as more white women arrived in the area, were increasingly fiowned upon, first among the elite, and then, by the 1890s, among most of the white population. Vancouver quickly became a place characterised by "social and cultural sepamtion."12 It was within this rapidly changing socio-economic climate that Vancouver's elite created "Stanley Park and removed the people who lived there.

The Birth of "Stanley Park"...

On 28 September, 1888, Coast Salish space, already reconceptuatised as a military reserve, was named "Stanley Park," zfter Lord Stanley, the Governor- General of the Dominion of Canada. This process of naming was an essential means through which British control of the space was reasserted. The pomp and circumstance of a grand civic procession &ou& the streets of Vancouver, followed by speeches and ceremonies, contributed to the remaking of this space into a park not only named after Lord Stanley, but for Lord Stanley and the entire system of power that the Governor General represented. The image of "the birth" of Stanley Park was central to the opening day ceremony. Significantly, chic officials announced that they had chosen the grave of Supple Jack -- the man formally deemed Indian chief of the space -- as the site for the park's "biahing" ceremony.13 The birth of "Stanley Park" as a place constnicted by and for Vancouver's new settler society was made possible by the death of the Coast Salish relationship to the land, as symbolised by Supple Jack's grave. What civic officiais failed to mention, however, was that Supple Jack Js family had been forcibly removed from the space just months before, making way for the ceremony to occur over his grave.

The birthing ceremony was a symbolic act that discursively obliterated any continued Coast Salish control of the land. It reinforced one of the oldest and most powemil myths of colonial discourse: the rnyth of the "Vanishïng American." Bnan W. Dippie effectively shows that this myth has been a unmg theme in white perceptions of Native peoples throughout American history. It was "a tradition rich in pathos and older than the republic": the belief that Native peoples were wasting away, both culturally and in actual numbes "untiJ, in sorne not too distant fûture, no red man will be left on the face of the earth."14 Within this picture contemporary Native people were drawn as static figures fiom days gone by -- romantic historical stereotypes, with no living counterparts. The idea of the "vanishing Indian" pervaded the "birthing" ceremony over Supple Jack's grave, reinforcing the dominant understaoding of whose space "Stanley Park" had become. This naming, this remaking of space, was also reinforced through maps, tangible, visible manifestations of the British settler society's claim to the space and the way they understood and redehed the land. A map that is particuiarly telling is one entitled The Standard Tourist's Guide to Stanley Park, published in 1923 at precisely the same time that city and crown authorities took legal action against the park residents.(Figure 7) Through this map the entire space was reworked in European tems, and Native peoples' relationships with the land erased. The power of cartography is made explicit if one compares this map to the one entitled Indian Numes for Farniliar Places -- a map which recorded Squamish place names -- constructed by Major Matthews and August Jack

Khahtsahlano.(Figure 8) On the "tourist map" the site of x'way way is renamed Figure 7 Map of "Stanley Park" From the Standard Tourist's Guide to Sianle-y Park, 1923

Lurnberman's Arch; the place where most of the Native and mixed-heritage park residents were living at that time is called Brockton Point, named by Captain Richards who surveyed Bunard Inlet, after Francis Brockton, the engineer of the HMS Plumper; Chaythoos becomes Prospect Point and Ay-Yul-Shun is called English Bay, the name adopted by Captain Richards and suggested by the meeting of the English with the

Spanish at Spanish ~anks.l

...The Death of Xwtay Xway

There has been some speculation, but no substantial evidence, that a smallpox epidemic that occurred in 1888 was largely responsible for the demise of the village of x'way way. The "Stanley Park" road workers aç well as the residents fiom the Brockton Point comrnunity were quarantined for several months during that year and buildings in the space were scheduled to be burned. Whether the disease achially killed or even dfected the people at x'way way at that tirne, however, is unknown. Major Matthews indicated that x'way way as well as the homes at Brockton Point were demolished during the building of the park road for of a smallpox epidemic.l6 Moreover, the effects of smallpox on Native peoples in the Lower Mainland in the latter half of the century are thought to have been relatively minimal since most Natives in the area were vaccinated against the disease in 1862.17 Nevertheless, it was during 1888, the year of the smallpox scare, and the year of the "birth" of "Stanley Park," that city authorities removed most of the remaining Coast Salish residents. August Jack Khahtsahlano, son of Supple Jack, recalled a particular day during the building of the park road to Major Matthews. He was eatiog breakfast with his family in their home at Chaythoos (the end of the Pipe Line Road beneath Prospect Point) when they heard a loud noise outside: When they make Stanley Park road we was eating in our house (at Chaythoos)... when the morscorne along, and they chop the corner of our house (indignantly)... We dl get up go out see what was the matter. My sister Louise, she was the only one talk a Iittle English; she goes out ask whiternan what he's doing that for. The man Say, "We're surveying the road." My sister ask him, "Whose road? 1s it whiteman's?" Whiteman says, "Someday you'll hdgood road around, it's going around." Of course, white-man did not Say park; they did not cd it park then.

On August 26, 1943, the Vancouver Sun reported îhat Khahtsahlano "amused the audience" during the re-enactment celebration of the "birth" of Stadey Park "by temg of the building of the first road around the park." It seems, however, that August Jack was far fiom arnused: "They Say: 'You'lI have lots of money.' That was more than nfty years ago and I'm still waiting for it." l9 August Jack Khahtsahlano and his family moved to Snauq at the Kitsilano Indian reserve but they were not the only Native people removed fiom the park at the time of the building of the road. Reverend C. M. Tate remembered the destruction of several homes: "1 think that when the driveway around Stanley Park was cut, that the poçts of the Indian houses were sawn off Ievel with the ground; the stumps would be in the ground yet; I presume they would be cedar, and very rot resi~ting."~~One of the park road workers recalIed rather unapologetically that while he was working "the Indians were put out of the houses, and we were put in. We had an excellent French cook, but the Living quarten were not so go0d."2~ Ironicdly, the road that led to the forcible removal of the Native people from Stanley Park was built along a path cleared long before by Coast Salish peoples to get fiom Chaythoos to x'way way during high tide.22 An even more devastating irony is that the "Stanley Park" road was built fiom the materials of the midden at x'way way.

The midden was dug up and "the calcined shells were carted away... in such quantity as to make a novel white road hmthe park entrmce on Cod Harbour around Brockton Point and a long distance towards Prospect The midden was of immeasurable archeological value and was irreversibly disturbed.

The photograph taken of the road workers standing in deposits of shells from the midden that are well over a rnetre deep and several meters wide is a poignant image of how one understanding of space was literally overlaid upon another. (Figure 9) The competing definitions of the space were being played out on the land itself The building of the park road was the first change wrought on the physical environment by those who envisioned the space as a park. Yet, the Coast Salish presence, their relationship with the land was physically manifest, in this midden. The use of the midden for the park road was an act of both physical and symbolic erasure of the Coast Salish presence in "Stanley Park." According to Charies Hill-Tout, "the photograph [of the road workers standing in the midden which had been sent to him by Major Matthews]... records the dernolition of one of the largest of the old time Indian middens." In carhg away the midden mass a considerable number of skeletons was disinterred. Hill-Tout wrote that the bones of these skeletons were gathered up by the workmen and placed in boxes in the forest for the Indians to take away and bury. While possibly well- intentioned, the road workers' plan did not work. Hill-Tout discovered the uncollected bones a few years later. By then, he wrote, "the crania had ...fallen to pieces."24

' On 7 January, 1889, Dr. A.M. Robertson, City Health Officer, recornended to the City Couocil that "the houses at Brockton Point be destroyed and that no Indians coming from a distance be allowed to camp there in the future." According to Major Matthews, this "recommendation was carried out" and "gives an idea of the date when

Indians no longer lived in their ancient home." 25

In a sense Major Matthews was right. The village of x'way way was destroyed by 1889 and most of the remaining residents in and around the village site were Figure 9 Park road workers collecting materials fiom the xw'ay xway midden to build the first park road, 1888. City of Vancouver Archives, St. Pk. P. 80, N. 50. removed. 1889, however, does not mark the end of the Native presence in "Stadey Park." A Squamish woman known as Aunt Sally, her husband Howe Sound Jim, and their daughter Mariah Kulkalem somehow managed to stay in their home at the site of the x'way way village until the eviction trials of the 1920s. Moreover, Native women continued to live with their European partners and their children at the Brockton Point site mtil well into the twentieth cenhiry.

The residents at Brockton Point were quarantined for a? least two months during the smallpox scare and their homes were destroyed. City officiais, however, were unable to keep these people fiorn coming back and rebuilding rheir community. City Council made a record of estimated property loss for "Cummings, Cole, Joe Sylvia, Peter Smith, John Brown, E. Long, three siwash houses, and J. Bruns." The records indicate that the residents were to receive an amount ranging fiom forty to hvo hundred dollars, minus the cost of medicai attention, bedding and twenty-five cents per day for board during quarantine.26 In January of 1889 "Portuguese Joe" (we do not how which "Pomiguese Joe") made a daim to City Council for loss of property by burning during the quarantine. "While not admitting any legal Liability on the part of this City," read the Council minutes, "we deem it expedient that Portuguese Joe be tendered $100 in full satisfaction for said los se^."^^ There is no evidence that indicates whether the other residents ever received the money. One of the greatest mysteries of the history of the Brockton Point residents is that none of them refers to these losses degthe eviction trials during the 1920s, nor does any evidence, beyond Portuguese Joe's claim, indicate how their homes were rebuilt. Nevertheless, it is clear that city authorities were unable to remove the residents of the Brockton Point communïty in the same fashion as they had just removed the Coast Salish residents in and around x'way way. The city had been able to rely upon the Indian reserve system to expeI the Coast Salish residents. The Indian Reserve Commission had made it clear that the Native residents of "Stanley Park" could be removed to Indian reserves when the land was required by govemment. The tune had corne. But for the removal of the community at Brockton Point, which consisted of both Native wornen and European men, city authorities would have to garner Merlegal-political power. That wodd corne later. First, city and park authorities turned their attention towards gathe~gsuffcient power to remove the Chinese residents at Anderson's Point. The Chinese Residents of "Stanley Park"

Typical of early Vancouver history, very linle was recorded about the Chinese men who lived on the shoreline at Anderson's Point, presently the site of the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club, other than that they were deemed a nuisance by city authorities. However, Mrs. Sarah Harris, the daughter of the fkst Park Ranger, Henry Avison, recounted her memories of the Chinese residents to Vancouver Archivist Major Matthews:

They had some old shacks; there was more than one, and they were old; 1 don%lmow how many Chinamen; there may have been half a dozen or a dozen ...The shacks were just old cedar parts; 1don't know where they got their water, perhaps they had a well. I don't recall them having a boat, but they had pigs and a bd1.28 These Chinese men who hedin "Stanley Park" went against the city elite's claim to the space. Their rernovd, like that of the Coast Salish and mixed-heritage residents, was motivated by the city eiite's desire to uphold their understanding and control over the land. The Chinese, however, were removed fiom the park in a manner that differed signifïcantly fiom the means used to remove the other residents. No govemment commission came to consider whether or not they had a right to the land, nor did a court of law deliberate over their case. The homes of the Chinese residents of "Stanley Pak," like many other Chinese homes in the city at the the, were bumed with linle or no notice and without compensation. These burnings were justified on the premise that the homes were a threat to public health. The forced removal of the Chinese residents fkom Stanley Park was not an isolated incident but muçt be undentood in the context of extreme anti-Asian racism and the desire of white society to keep the Chinese in "a place apart. " Chinese men were crucial to the early establishment of the British Columbian capitalkt economy when white labour was in short supply. Yet, even as their presence was desirable, particularly for the owners of capital, the Chinese received only one-half to two-third the wage rates of other workers.29 As the British colony became a province, a place in which a dominant white society was estabiishing itself, the status of the Chinese as outsiders was heightened. This anti-Chinese sentiment found particular expression at the level of British Columbia's new provincial government. During the first session of the provincial legislature an act was passed to prohibit Chinese (and Native) people fiom voting. As Kay Anderson tells us, "the symbolic implication of such legal targethgtl was that it "officially sealed the dien or non-settler statu of the category 'chinese.'"30 This racism, institutionalised on a provincial level, found particular expression in the Burrard Met area Chinese men had been an integral part of this growing lumber society. Many were employed as labourers at the saw mills while some established small stores and laundry services in Granville. By the mid-1880s there were 114 settlers of Chinese origin on Burrard W?de Chinese labourers in the Met had undoubtedly expenenced a certain degree of hardship during the lumber town days, the making of Vancouver brought more intense and formalised racism against them. For most Chinese laboures, like their Native counterparts, the rapid economic growth of the late 1880s did not bring greater wedth but heightened cornpetition and marginalisation. Workers were pitted against each other as the dominant group Myestablished itself in the new city. The new city elite, alongside virtually every strata of the city's white population, actively sought to prevent permanent Chinese settlement. As soon as Vancouver became a city, municipal politicians brought forth an election exclusion act so that Asians (and Natives) could not vote. During the first municipal election, sixty Chinese men were chased from the polls back to the Hastings Mill. Two citizen cornmittees appeared early in 1887 to raise bdsto send Chinese people back to China and to induce employers to replace Chinese with white labour. By February of the same year an ad-Chinese league had been formed "with the specinc intention of preventuig Chinese nom relocating within the city limit~."~~The cornmittee rnembers included the mayor of the time, a magistrate, and a hardware merchant, but support for the anti-Asian movement was also widespread among working-class whites? When one Chinese "boss" brought his gang of Chinese workers to clear some West End land trouble quickly ensued. On that evening 300 angry men pded down, burned, or ransacked the shanties of Chinese workers and "some twenty-five workers, it was said by the press, [were] 'kicked and knocked about."' The city police and civic authonties turned a blind eye to the violence, and the foIlowing day the Chinese living in the Carra1 Street area were notified to leave the city. The provincial government responded to these events with official disapproval and passed a Bill to Preserve the Peace in Vancouver that annulled the city's judicial powers and thereby allowed the Chinese to stay and establish re~idence.~~ It was within this context of racism and marginaiisation, Kay Anderson argues, that the ethnicity of "Chinese" was created and the spatial pattern of where these

"Chinese" people lived in Vancouver was consolidated. In China, an individual may have thought of him or herself as Cantonese or Mandarin, or perhaps identified at a smder level, as belonging to a particular village or town or even farnily lineage, but in British Columbia, a new awareness of being "Chinese" would have been imposed, and probably intemdised by the immigrants. Migration had turned the Chinese into an "identifiable cultural" and in this case a "racial minority." As a result, "most sought out theu own kind, partly for the familiarity of language and culture, partly for sec- against the perceived and ofien real hostility of the larger society."35 While the ci^ was formally prohibited by the provincial governent from expelling the Chinese residents, most Chuiese ended up settling on the penphery of the city on land "which paralleled its residents' margina! cultural, legal and economic status."36 The city then looked for new ways to expel, or at least control, the Chinese residents. The newly established health board and its whole gamut of sanitation regulations became a primary means for such control. During the late 1880s the Chinese men who lived on the marshes between Pender Street and False Creek, mostly unemployed railway worken, were put out of their homes. According to Ji11 Wade, the ciw j6edthe buming of the shacks through sanitation regulations but neglected to plan for new housing in ~hùiatown.37 As the Chinese became increasingly marginaiised, their living conditions declined and this, of course, only senred to strengthen the city authorities' sentiment that urban vice and filth Lay at the centre of

As for "Stanley Park," the evidence explicitly shows that the health by-laws were used as a smoke screen to jus* what city authorities had already decided: they wanted the Chinese residents out. The lawyer working for the park cornmissioners wrote a letter to City Council on 27 June, 1890 that read as follows:

1 beg to call your attention to the fact, that owing to the unsatisfactory position of their powers, the Commissioners are unable to take steps to remove certain squatters on the West Park and as the Chinese in particular are causing a nuisance by the fou1 smells arising fiom their shed and enclosures 1 would request you to instruct the Health Officer to examine same with a view to havuig the said China-men indicted as a nuisance.38 And so it went. Three days after receiving the Iawyer's letter, City Council moved for the Health Inspector "to take the necessary steps towards removhg nuisances dong the Park Road, especially the Cbese."39 Kay Anderson's research confirms that it was only after Attorney-General Davie questioned the city's jurisdictional right to rid the park of the Chinese that City Council turned to its board of health to facilitate the residents' removal?O Action was taken under section thirty-eight of the Public Health By-laws. At one point, however, the plans were stalled by doubts among rnembers of the Board of

Health "as to their right of action in the premises." This did not deter the City Solicitor. He then instnicted action to be taken under a diierent by-la~.~~ By July, the Health Inspecter claimed to have given the Chinese residents of the park "requisite notification to leave within a specified the." He complained, however, that he did not have enough tirne to deal with the situation and asked the Board of Park Commissioners to turn the situation over to the park ranger.42 According to the park ranger's daughter. Sarah Harris, "the Chinamen would not go, so the Park Board told my father to set fire to the buildings. I saw them bum...what happened to the Chinese 1 do not know." As for the pigs and the bull, "my Dad tracked them down, and they shot them in the bushes, and the bulPs head was cut off. and my father had it stufTed and set up in our hallway in our house, the 'Park ~ottage."'~3 Two years &er their dispossession, the Board was infomed that Chinese people were apparently lighting fies in the vicinity of Chinese graves. The park ranger was distressed since he felt this was "endangering park property." The Parks Board instmcted the Chief of Police to order the Chinese to dig up their graves and to remove the bodies. According to Michael Steelc, the graves of Europeans buried in the park were not di~hubed?~ While city records do not reveal wliat happened to these particular Chinese men expelled fiom Stanley Park, Ji11 Wade asserts that the people whose waterfiont homes were demolished were amazingly resilient. Afier every dernolition by the city, srna11 watemont communities "sprang up again with renewed ~i~our."~~ The Chinese residents of "Stanley Park" took up their homes at Anderson's Point largely as a result of the racism that required Chinese people to live in "a place apart" fiom the white majority. "Stanley Park," and the foreshore of False Creek had become, in one seme, refuges for people comîructed as alien and different. Yet, the periphery these Chinese men had chosen to live on had become centrai to the identity of this new English-speaking City. Their homes in "Stanley Park" went against the elite's daim to that space. The burning of their shacks was a reassertion of a particular definition of place and more broadly of dominant society's right to define places in general. The city sought a Legal-political justification for their desire to have the Chinese residents removed. Yet, in the end, the means by which the Chinese were expelled fiom the park was considerably more violent than the means later used to rernove the white and mixed-heritage residents of Brockton Point. The dispossession of the Chinese fiom the park in the 1890s occurred within the context of perhaps the most intense penod of anti-Chinese racism in British Colurnbian history .

The Brockton Point Residents

The removal of "Stanley Park's" Coast Salish peoples during the late 1880s was made easy by the ideology, politics, and economy of colonialism that had already largely transformed a Native place into a British place. By 1890, the socio-political climate of eeeme racism against Chinese people aliowed city authonties to justify the violent removal of Chinese residents fiom their homes in the park. City authonties, however, were unable to drive out the people at Brockton Point at the same time. This comunity, which consisted of Native women and Europeao men, couid not be moved onto Indian reserves. Nor would city authorities seek to remove a community that included white people by the same violent means they used to remove the Chinese. Another strategy for the dispossession of the remaining park residents, however, was set into motion by the tum-of-the-century. The City of Vancouver currently has a nuiety-nine year Iease of "Stanley Park" which replaced a less formai authorisation by Order-in-Councii. As the major wrote in 1899, the city sought the lease to "put us in a better position to deal with squatters and trespassers which we could not do directly under the Order in Council." The park board and city council were so deeply distressed about the presence of "a number of srnail dwellings... harbouring squatters [and] undesirable characters" in the park that they sought the legal-political power necessary to expel tl1ern.~6 Though the city obtained the lease it sought in 1906, it was not until the 1920s that the park commissioners, "anxious that ...action should be taken", had the park residents removed. The park commissioners were aware that by the 1920s "the time wsapproaching when a number of them [the park residents] would be able to obtain title by possession, even as against the ~rown."~~ In 1923, the City of Vancouver joined with the Attorney-General of Canada as plaintiffs to dispossess the residents of "Stanley Park" by taking the issue to provincial court. The onus of estabiishing titie fell on the park residents - Agnes CUmmings, Maggie West, Alfred Gonzalves, Peter Smith, Mary DeKosta, Edward Long, Tommy Cole, and Mary Dunbar -- who were required to prove that they or their ancestors had iived on the land since 1863. The trial judge decided against the residents. In his opinion, only one Native woman, "Aunt Sally," was able to satisfactorily prove sixty years of possession. The deciding factor was the map (Figure 3), which had been prepared by Corpord George Turner of the Royal Engineers in March 1863, which showed only one dwelling, apparently that of Aunt Sally and her partner Howe Sound Jh.The defeated residents appealed the decision and in 1924 the British Columbia Court of Appeal decided in their favour. The city, together with the federd govemment, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in 1925 the park residents were findly defeated and the crown was granted the power to evict them. The law, usualiy considered a neutrd arbiter that is capable of disceming the "trutb" and distributing ''justiceYt'supported the understanding of the space as a park f?om the outset of the case. The entire frame of reference upon which this battle was fought was cdturally specinc - a legal system developed in Britain and banslated, albeit with some local specificities, onto "the new wortd." During this case, the concept of Native title was not entertained, nor was there any acknowledgment that the land was never ceded by sale, treaty, or war. The park residents were forced to fight for their homes according to the discourse of "squatter's rights" or "adverse possession"; that is, they had to prove that they had Lived there contiouously for sixty years -- the statutory period required to defeat the title of the Crown. The explanation of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is perhaps most telling: "It was for the respondents [the park residents] to shew title. The Statute of Limitations is a defence, and the burden of proving such a possession... fell upon the Re~pondents."~8Thus, the City and the Crown enjoyed the position of being considered a priori the legitimate holders of title to the land. The Crown had no obligation to prove nich possession, but simply had to maintain its position in the face of the defence brought forth by the residents. In her book Mokng Law, Order and Authority in British Columbia, Tina Loo demonstrates that the law is neither natural nor neutral but relies upon particular cultural and ideological assumptions, pdcular ways of seeing and explainhg the world that are taken as natural and given. "In dealing with conflict, the law defines what the issue in dispute is and what facts are relevant to it, and then assigns those facts value and meanùig by referring to its own desof evidence as well as to other laws ... and finally reaches a decision based on its own construction of the 'truth."' In other words, it is "a self-referentid system of kn~wled~e."~gThe categones and assumptions inherent to the

"squatter case" were taken as bnith, or more likely, not thought about at dl. Most explicitly, the entire system of land holding which had been imposed upon British Columbia since the midde of the nineteenth century -- that is, concepts of pnvate property, and individual or state ownership that excluded Native and Chinese people, were taken for granted and never contested. The use of the word "squatter," for exampie, was a powerfd discursive tool that facilitated the construction of the park residents as trespassers. Illegality is irnplicit in the word. A texm often used synonymously with squatting by the judges and lawyers was "adverse possession," which, in this case, meant contrary to the law. Indeed, the presence of these people in the park challenged the entire legal, poïitcd and cultural system that had been imposed on the space including concepts of property and ownership. The individuality of the particdm judges in the three levels of the triai, however, also pIayed some role in the outcome of the case. J.A. McPhillips, one of the judges residing over the case at the B.C. Court of Appeal, whose decision was ulbately ovemdden by the Supreme Court of Canada, cautiously entertained the notion that the park residents could have established their right to the land via aboriginal title: "There being no express extinguishment of the Indian titie in British Columbia... it might reasonably be said that there could be no prior possession in the Crown to the possession shewn by the defendant." Yet, ultimately restrained by the legal traditions in which the case was embedded, this judge referred back to the statutory penod of sixty years as the key reason for his judgment in favour of the park re~idents-~o Similarly, Judge Martin of the B.C. Court of Apped was particularly impressed by the evidence provided for the Cummings case. Both Agnes Cummings and her sister Maggie West claimed title through their father James Cummings who had purchased the land fkom Takood and Klah Chaw. According to Martin, "there can be no question here of any substantial error" regarding their title since "the shaman wah Chaw] is a personage of the first, indeed sinister consequence among the Indians of this Coast and no habitation would be better known by the natives than his." But like McPhillips, Martin based his decision in favour of Cummings and West upon his belief that they had satisfactorily proven sixty years adverse possession and not upon the aboriginal tide of Klaw Chaw. "It is not necessary to consider Klah Chaw's titie," wrote Martin. Nevertheless, he asserted that "it is difficdt to imagine a stronger position in law in primitive conditions than that of the holder of a possessory title antedating the biah of the Colony itseK"51 Another reason aboriginal titie was not considered was that the park residents, mostly boni of European fathers and Native mothers, were not considered Native. The ability of the govemment and the lepl system to define who was and who was not "Indian" had enormous ramincations on the case. "While there are at least eight familes living on the park property," wrote W.E. Ditchbum, Chief lnspector of lndian Agencies in 1919, "there is only one of pure Indian blood, the balance being either half-breeds or whites, therefore the Department [of Indian Affairs] has no paaicular interest in the other seven fa mi lie^."^^ Since the passing of the in 1876 the Canadian govemment had been delking who was and was not "Indian" and deserving of their paternalism. From 1876 to 1985 the determination of Indian status was based on a patrilineal system, that is, by a person's relationship to "a male person who is a direct descendent in the male line of a male person." When a Native woman bom with Indian status mkeda non-status man she lost that status and was unable to regain it even if she was subsequently divorced or widowed. By contrast, Indian men were able to bestow theù status upon their non-Native wives and theù children.53 The park residents claixned title patrilineally, through their father or grandfather, and for Alfked Gonzalves, through his uncle, while their matrilineal relationship to the land was either not considered or easily disrnissed. Peter Smith, his sister Mary DeKosta, and DeKosta's son Edward Long claimed title through Peter Smith Sr., whom they asserted had arrîved during the tirne of the gold rush, more than sixty years (the required statutory period) before the commencement of the eviction action. The lawyer acting on behalf of Smith, DeKosta, and Long did not try to establish their Native rnother's, or in Long's case, grandmother's relationslip to "Stadey Park." The lawyer acting for the crown, however, attempted to prove that their mother and her father (Shwuthchalton) had senled in Stanley Park after Smith's arrival.54 Margaret Percevel, a "concemed citizen" of Vancouver, conducted a letter writing campaign to the Department of indian Affairs and Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie KUig in the name of Christianity on behalf of Mary DeKosta While Mrs. Perceval occasionally referred to Mary DeKosta as a "half-breed," she focilseci on Mrs. DeKosta's Indian heritage. "She has üved there dl her life - her mother and grandparents before her," wrote Mrs. Percevel. "She is a very estimable woman, but quite an Indian you know, and incapable of living as we do. Surely the Dominion of Canada can afford to let this poor innocent creature whose forefathes were here long before we were, spend the rest of her days where she is."55 Apparedy the Dominion of

Canada could not. Indian agent Perry explained: "Mrs. De Costa was manied to a white man and her father was a white man...I would add that the De Costa family are ceMy no Indians and their names are not on record in the census book of this office." According to Perry, "there appear[ed] to be nothing our Department c[ould] do" for "the De Costa family and six other half-breed families" of Stanley ~ark.5~ One of the six park residents whom Indian Agent Perry labeled as a "half-breed" was Tommy Cole. Andrew Paull, a Squamish man renowned for his political activism, wrote a letter to Duncan Scott indicating that Cole was Squamish. "Tommy Cole being an Indian," wrote Padl, "is deserving of the protection of the Indian Department which was extended to Aunt Sally and heirs." According to Paull, Tommy Cole thought that his rights were indisputable "since he had inherited the property fiom his grandfather whose ancestors had resided in the disputed area £tom the irnmem0riai."5~But the DIA had the final word: "Among the List of squatters whom 1did not consider to be wards of the Government [was] the name of Tommy Cole... his mother being an Indian though his father was a white man."58 By contrat, Aunt Sally, Howe Sound Jim, and their daughter Mariah Kulkalem were considered the one "pure blood Indian" family of the park and therefore deserving of assistance fiom the Department of Indian Mairs. Both Duncan Scott and W.E. Ditchbuni indicated that Aunt Sally's family should be "duly compensateci" if remo~ed.~~The DIA did not, however, support the family's claim to tide of the land.

As an arm of the same government that sought to remove the family, the Dm's dewas to ensure the fdyremained "wards" of the state. "1 am of the opinion," wrote Ditchburn, "that they would be better off if they were to sel1 out and go among their own people. They could be placed on one of the reserves up Howe Sound and the money which they would obtain could be used for their upkeep." Ditchbum also asserted that since Aunt Sdyand her family Lived outside of an Indian reserve they could not receive full paternalistic protection fiom the DIA. "The house," wrote Ditchbuni, "is dirty and untidy, and the Health Board would be within their rights in ordering it destroyed, it being outside of an Indian ~eserve. Even Scott's limited interest in securing compensation for the family was shoa lived. In May of 1923 Scott received a letter fkom the Department of National Defence reminding him that "the squatters" were being taken to court by the city in the name of the Attorney-General of Canada "so that in reality such action is being taken by the

Crown." This letter served as a waming to Scott that his allegiance, as an employee of the federal govemment, mut be to the crown whose title was being threatened. "The time was approaching when a number of them would be able to obtain title by possession even as against the crown... I trust, therefore, that this fact wilI not be Iost sight of by your department, should any matters conceming the removal of these squatters corne before your department for con~ideration."~ ShortIy after receiving this letter Scott indicated to Perry that he would no longer press for compensation. The city, wrote Scott,

is not disposed to offer any compensation... but ...proposes to ask the courts for a declaration of title. 1 do not know that we can hdmuch fa& with this attitude... since the question of their rights as squatters will be determined by the cow. While seeking to assist Aunt Sally and her family, clearly the primary hction of the

Department of Indian Mâirs was to sustain the land system that kept Indians on reserves and denied them access to land and resources. When pushed, even DIA paternalism was abandoned. "The Indians," wrote Scott in one of his nnal memos on the issue, "are of course in no Merent position fiom that of other sq~atters."6~

There is no &en evidence indicating that Aunt Sally's case ever went to trial. Her case was delayed because she died in 1922, just before the commencement of the &ials. Her clah, however, was established through the other cases. The judges in d of the other cases clearly indicated that they believed that the one "Indian house" shown on the Turner map belonged to Aunt Sally and her family. It seems that City Council accepted the opinions established in the other cases. "The ninth case," wrote the Deputy Minister of National Defence, "ha been allowed to stand as a result of an opinion which has been expressed by the...City of Vancouver." The City then began negotiations with

Aunt Sally's daughter Mariah and solicited the MUiistry of Defence to cornpensate her. The Ministry, however, refused this responsibility stating that "the interests of the

Govemment in the Park is not considered to be sufficient to justiQ the expenditure of public money which any setîlement would ent~iil."~~In the end, W.C. Shelley, then Park Boards Commissioner, bought the property fkom Mariah for $15,000. City CounciI later purchased it from him.64 While it is evident that the Department of Indian Affairs and the legal system did not consider the park residents "Mans"since, by the 1920s, they were mostly of mixed-heritage, it is also important to consider how the park residents identined themselves and the role this may have played in the outcome of the case. Th Crimmings definltively asserted his long-standing comection with his home. "I'm older than Vancouver," he boasted in a BC Magazine article written in 1951. Cummings went to a Native residential school in Chilliwack and nearly married one of the fernale students there.65 Yet, a picture taken of Cummings in 1% 1 shows him standing beside a flag of the Union ~ack.~~Nevertheless, whether or not he held a racial or cultural identity, be it Native, Scottish, or half-breed, is unlaiown. Peter Smith, Ir. was asked about his fathers nationality during the court case. "Portuguese," he stated. And when asked, "You were a Portuguese?," he responded, "~es."67 Yet even this response is not necessarily indicative of Smith's raciai/cdtural identiw. Perhaps if he had been asked about his mother's Native heritage bis response might have been ditrerent. Jean Barman's research suggests that the residents of "Stanley Park," as people of mixed heritage, might not have identined as Native and may have abandoned any association with a Native past. "With the passage of time," writes Barman, "half-breeds became outcasts. Europeans, Indians and even some of the breeds themselves grew unwilling to acknowledge such an identity." People of mixed heritage "seldom had a place in a white man's society," but they were also "legally prohibited fiom living on reserves, and native people sometimes scomed them."68 While it is impossible to know for certain, the extent to which people of mixed-blood were marginalised at the time might explain why the residents of "Stanley Park" did not stress their Native backgrounds in court. Another key reason the park residents were defeated in the Iegal case was that evidence given by Native witnesses, which supported the residents' claim to the land, was dismissed. According to Judge M~rphy~"three Indians give evidence that these houses were there for a period that would constitute si- years adverse possession-" Nevertheless, their evidence was considered "indecisive" since the witnesses recalled what happened in the "park" in relation to the Cariboo Gold Rush and were unable to consistently t5x their testimony according to exact dates.@ Whiie it is tme that the Native witnesses did give contradictory dates during testimony, the fact that Native people would have understood the passing of time according to a system other than that which was used by Europeans was not considered. In search of rhe objective "truth" of the bistory of "Stanley Park," the law did not consider the cultural specinciv of the Western systern of time nor that of the histoncal knowledge being conveyed by these Native witnesses. The problem of cultural insensitivity, however, began long before the interpretation of the evidence. It was uIherent to the actual process of gathering or hearing the evidence. In one passage, that will be quoted at length, there appears to have been a-dennite confiict between the question and answer format of legal discourse and the discourse of Native story telling. The Native witness, James T.affend.de, expressed clear hstration with the lawyer's persistence for dates and the fiamework in which he was being forced to convey his information.

Q: [fiom the lawyer Mr. McCrossan] Well now, did you notice a house at any time some year later down near the lighthouse, near Brockton Point? A: No. 1was away for four years, away fiom here, and 1 came down fkom the Stikene River and it was then I noticed tbat house. TIFE COURT: What year would that be - '72? Mr. McCrossan: When you came back fiom the Stikene? A: Either in - not '99 1was away. No, '69, you mean? Well, that would be in '70. It would be sometùne in the seventies? Yes. Now try to get it closer if you cm? Well, I codd not tel you without telling you the narrative -- the little narrative - the little tale of it, THE COURT: Never mind. You know when you went to the Stikene and when you came back. How many years was it after you went to the Stikene? Mr. McCrossan: How many years was it &er '69 that you went to the Stikene? A: Yes, in '74. Q: In '74 - that is the date? A: Yes. 70 Clearly James Taffendale wanted to provide context, he wanted to tell "the tale of it" as he knew it, but there was no room for his story within this legal discourse. The witness's "unsatisfactory" evidence was fostered by the fiamework in which it was forced to be given. Tom Abraham, another Native witness, at one point flatly refüsed to engage in the western discourse of time.

Q: Do you remember the time the Moodyville Mill was built? A: No, 1 don't remember. Q: Do you know how many years before that mil1 was built was the Carïboo gold rush, how many winters? A: It was no business of mine to keep record of these things. White people can go wherever they want to, and they went where they went.71 Another primary reason the park residents were defeated was that they were required to prove possession of the land according to British legal understandings of what constituted ownership. The trial judge, for instance, indicated that "because possessio pedis must be proven, and 1 hold that no clearing and no definite fencing has existed for sixty years, I...hold that the Crown is entitled to recover those parcels of pr~perty."~*The fence is a powerful symbol for British understandings of ownenhip and "proper" land use. Austraiian historian Henry Reynolds asserts that one the primary justifications for the British claim of ownership of al1 of A&ia was the belief that since Aborigines do not enclose, fann, or "improve" the land they have no nghts to it. The British believed that the Abongines had never reaily been in possession of the land: "they ranged over it rather than residing on it." It was determined, therefore, that "the Aborigines ...had a feeling of obligation towards the land but not the actual ownership of it? Mary Louise PraK author of lmperial Eyes, has argued that the "anti-esthetic of neglect" was used to justZy and legitirnate European intervention. Unexploited land not only represented waste of potential but represented idleness of the people them~elves.~~ According to Pratf "this essentiabhg discursive power is impervious until those who are seen are also listened to."75 Indeed, much of colonial power rests in the defining

gaze of the powerful - the ability of the coloniser to see and therefore name. The pivotal evidence of the case was based on that which was seen by an European engineer employed by the Queen in 1863. If clearings such as those demarcated by fences did exist "it would be a physical impossibility," asserted Judge Murphy, "for a surveyor such as Tumer, to have failed to see it."76 While the vision of a European fiom sixty years previous was held as important evidence in the case, the voices of Native witnesses in the trial were virtually ignored. The idea that those who do not "improve" the land have no right to it was central

to the city's desire to have the residents evicted. In fact, the city justified its pursuit of more fomal power to evict the squatters upon "the improvements" they had made to the park as compared to the residents. The City Council resolution fiom 1 August, 1898 read as follows:

And whereas the city annually expends a large sum in improvements therein. Be it therefore resolved that it is in the interests of the city and the public generally that powers be vested in the ciW... to evict trespassers, remove undesirable buildings and prevent nuisances.77 - The park residents contravened British understandings of ownership and property. It was also the visibility of their povem that made their presence in the park "undesirable" and a "nuisance." "The City and the Park Commissioners," wrote the Deputy Minister of National Defence in 1923, %ad some anxiety concerning the presence in Stanley Park of some eight Indian families who were squatte=...and whose houses and other buildings did not add to the general appearance of the ~ark."78 While the Vancouver Park Board was initially controlled by members of the city's entrepreneurhl elite, by the 1920s the Park Board was dominated by middle-class men who rejected the elite's purely romantic notion of parks. Rather, park board philosophy had been influence by the latest reform notions about the value of active and organized recreation as well as by the Amencan City Beautifid movement that believed in beautiwg urban park space through architectural and landscape design. In shorf the park board sought to " improve" Stanley Park and to make it more ~sable.~~It seems, then, that the homes of the park residents were undesirable not just because they belonged to "Indians" but because they belonged to poor people whose homes were thought of as unsightly. Indeed, just afler the residents were evicted fiom their homes in Z 93 1, the Vancouver Star reported:

A new and attractive night view of the harbor is now available to the public by the evacuation fiom their old shanties in the vicinity of the time gun in Brockton Point. It [the area] will be made ready for a more permanent improvement in the near fûture. After the Case...

The city did not force the immediate removai of the park residents after the completion of the case in 1925. According to The Province, the city had "a kindly feeling toward these old-bers1' and would not evict them unless ~Vcumstancesin the future required their removal. The legal proceedings were described as "a mere formality to legalize the city's title and position."gl This "formality" was played out shortly after the conclusion of the case when the sheriff visited the residents and asked them to vacate their homes for a prescnbed period of three minutes while the city officially took possession. At this point the residents became tenants of the city and paid nominal rent of twelve doIlars a year. One newspaper account suggests that the residents, even at this point, did not give up the fight for their land. "Trouble was apparently expected in evicting, even technically, the settlers," wrote The Province in July 1925, "for when the sheriff arrived he was accompanied by several officers." Mrs. Smith refbsed to leave her home until assured by a Iawyer that "not withstanding dispossession, she could still appeai the case." Apparently, as soon as Mrs. Smith received her receipt for the rent she asked, "'Does the landlord put in the improvements?' When assured that the landlord wodd... she said, Very weii, 1 want rny house reshingled."'82 The days of "mere formality," however, were numbered. On 23 February, 193 1 the park board instructed the city solicitor to give three months' notice to the remaining five families to vacate the park. Apparently the city allowed four of the remauiing families to occupy, fiee of rent, city houses fiom 1931 until 1933. These houses were acquired by tax sale and were nat located in the park! Al1 of the park residents' homes, Save that of Tim and Agnes Cummings, were burnt on 25 June 25, 193 1.~3Tirn was never forrnally evicted fiom his home since he hid throughout the eviction trials and his remafter the legal affair was over put the officiais in a quandary. Tim and his sister Agnes lived in Stanley Park until their deaths in the 1950s. The story of Tim and Agnes becarne somewhat of a romantic one for the people of Vancouver. Periodicaliy, one of the local newspapers would do a piece on these "last squatters" of the park. In 1955, the Vancouver Sun called Tim, a "most unique squire, the son of a bearded Scottish seaman and a beautiful Bella Coola Indian maiden"; a man who had "long accepted... the miracle that [had] alIowed him to live in Stanley ~ark"~~ "Stanley Parkff was made by Vancouver's "respectable" settler society, and particularly, by the city's entrepreneurid elite. It was an understanding of space that was both cdturally and class specific and connected to this group's desire to establish a sense of home for themselves in unfarniliar land. "Stanley Park," however, was already a home -- "one of many homes" to Central Coast SaLish people and home to other groups of people who were considered, by virtue of their class and ethnicity, outside the realm of respectability. White racism required that Native and Chinese people lived in "a piace apart," but this place could not be "Stanley Park." Within two years of the remaking of the space into a park, the city of Vancouver forced the removal of the Chinese and most of the Native residents and destroyed their homes. The residents at Brockton Point, which included white men as well as some Native women and their children, were not as easily removed. Mer the tum of the century this cornmunity consisted mostly of people of mixed heritage who were also racially marginalised by "respectable" society. In addition, their poverty disrupted a white middle-class park aesthetic that sought to "improve"Stanley Park. Nevertheless, the continued presence of the Brockton Point residents in the park dlthe 1920s reminds us that the power of the civ elite to define the space was not total. The city had to self-consciously gather the necessary power to have each group rernoved. In each case, the law played a significant role, and in each case, the law, upheld the system of ownenhip and property that was imposed upon the space as early as 1863. The Idan Reserve Commission, backed by the state, backed by the law, backed by hundreds of years of coloniaiism and its associated ideologies, established the illegality of the presence of Native people in "Stanley Park" during the 1870s. Later, municipal laws were used to justiQ the violent expulsion of the Chinese residents. Finally, in 1925, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the city elite's understanding of the space as a park at the expense of the residents of Brockton Point, whose comection to the space reached back, patrilineally, for three generations, and, matrilineaily, since long before the birth of the colony itself. l Jean Bannan, The West Beyond the West: A History of British Columbia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 108.

Robert A. J. McDonald, Making Vancouver: CZass, Sfatus and Social Boundaries, 1863-1913 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1W6), 37.

McDonald, Making Vancouver, 37.

McDonald, Making Vancouver, 55.

McDonald, Making Vancouver, 39,45.

Robert A.J. McDonald, "'Holy Retreatl or 'Practical Breathùlg Spot'?: Class Perceptions of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 19 10-19 1 3 ," Canadiun Historical Review, LW, 2 (1984): 13 5.

Vancouver Park's Board, Minute Book, City of Vancouver Archives, vol. 1, 1 June, 189 1, quoted in McDonald, "'Holy Retreat, "' 135.

McDonald, "'Holy Retreat,"' I38.

9-McDonald, "'Holy Retreat!" l0 Ji11 Wade, Houses for AU: The Struggle fir Social Housing in Vancouver, 1919-1950 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1994), 18.

Kay Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's Univers@ Press, 1991), 66. l2 McDonald, Makng Vancouver, 58. l3 "The Opening of Stanley Park," The Dai& News-Advertiser, 28 September, 1888 as quoted in Major J.S. Matthews, comp., The Naming and Opening and Dedication of Stanley Park 1888-1889 (Vancouver: City of Vancouver Archives, 1954), 18. l4 Brian W. Dippie, The Vanishing Americnn: White Attitudes and US. Indian Policy (Lawrence: University of Kansas, 199l), originally published by Weleyan University Press, 1982. l5 Denys Nelson, "Some Ongins of Place Names of Greater Vancouver," in Museum Notes (Vancouver: Art, Histoncal and Scientific Association of Vancouver), 3 (3), (September 1928), 5 - 10. (British Columbia Archives and Records Service) Matthews, Eorly Vancouver, vol. IU,3 1 May, I934,4.

Harris, "The Making of the Lower Mainland," 90.

l8 Matthews, "Conversation with Haatsdano (sic)," Eady Vancouver, Vol. III, 9.

l9 "Throngs See 'Birth' of Stanley Park Re-Enactecl," The Vancouver Sun, 26 August, 1943,13-

2o Manhews, Emly Vancouver, vol. II, 22,23.

21 Major J.S. Matthews, comp., "Stanley Park: Lumbermanls Arch," in Topical Files, City of Vancouver Archives.

22 Matthews, Eady Vancouver, vol. m, 8.

23 "Site of prehiçtork Village, Park Road, FKst Narrows, 1888," Major Matthews Photograph Collection, City of Vancouver Archives, G.N. 9 1, St.Pk.N.50, P. 80 and Arch. N.35, P. 47.

24 Charles Hill-Touî, me Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume II: The Squamish and the Lillooet, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 53-4; Charles Hill-Tout, The Salish People, me Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume IV: The Sechelt and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island, ed. Raulph Maud (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978), 53- 4.

25 Matthews, Early Vancouver, vol. III, 1934,4.

26 Major J.S. Matthews, comp., "Smallpox (Hartney Papers)," Topical Files, City of Vancouver Archives.

27 City Council Minutes, 18 January, 1889, City of Vancouver Archives, vol. 2 and 3, Microfilm 1,644.

28 Major J.S. ~&hews, comp., "Stanley Park: Opening," Topical Files, City of Vancouver Archives.

29 Anderson, Vmcowerlr Chinatown, 35.

30 Anderson, Vancouver"; Chhatown, 47.

Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown, 64. 32 Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown, 64 - 6. .

33 McDonald, Making Vancouver, 58.

34 Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown, 66-8.

35 Harris, "Making an Immigrant Society," 264.

36 Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown, 68.

37 Wade, Houses for AU, 18-20; See also, City Clerk Inward Correspondence, City of Vancouver Archives, paxticularly 13 My,1896, RG2, Al, vol. 10 and 4 December, 1899, RG2, Al, vol. 15.

38 City Clerk Inward Correspondence, 27 June, 1890, CVA, RG2, Al, vo1.3.

39 City Councii Minutes, 30 June, 1890, CVA, vol. 3.

40 Anderson, Vancouver's Chinatown, 68.

41 City Clerk Inward Correspondence, RG2, Al, vo1.3, 1890, no date provided but within July 1890 correspondence.

42 City Clerk Inward Correspondence, RG2, Al, vo1.3, 1890, no date provided but wirhin July 1890 correspondence

43 Matthews, "Stanley Park: Opening," Topical Files.

Richard M. SteeIe, Vancouver's Famous Stanley Pmk: The Year-round Playground (Surrey: Heritage House, 1993), 25.

45 Wade, Homes for AU, 1 8.

46 Mayor of Vancouver to J. McKenzie, Esq., "Correspondence and Papers in Reference to Stdey Park and Deadman's Island, British Columbia," British Columbia Archives and Records Service, Sessional Papers No. 68A, 25 February, 1899, 26; On 7 June, 1887, the City of Vancouver was authorised by the Crown by Order in Council to use the Military Reserve, under certain conditions, as a park. In 1899, however, the city sought a more forma1 lease of the land. On 3 1 August, 1906, the lease the City sou@ was granted. "Stanley Park" was leased to six cornmissioners (appointed by the Govemor-in-Council and the City Council) for ninety-nine years renewable perpenially. And on 13 August, 1908 the Order-in-Council of 3 1 August, 1906 was amended to provide the leasing of Stanley Park for ninety-nine years renewable perpetuaily to the City of Vancouver instead of to six commissioners. Finally, a lease was granted on 1 November, 1908 for ninety-nine years renewable perpetually to the City of Vancouver with power in the Minister of Militia and Defence to resume possession of any portion of the park for rnilitary purposes whenever required in his judgrnent.

47 Department of National Defence to Duncan C. Scott, 12 May, 1923, Department of Indian Mairs, Black Series, "Re: Stanley Park,'' National Archives of Canada, RGl O, volume 4089, file 521,804.

48 "Judgment of J. Rinfet," Transcript, Atîorney General of Canada and the Ci@ of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1925), National Archives of Canada, RG 125, vol. 523, file 5074, unnumbered page.

49 Tina Loo, Makirtg Law, Order and Authority in British Columbia, 1821-1871 (T.oronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 8.

50 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Gonzalves (1 925).

Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Cummings(1925), 100.

52 W.E. Ditchbum to Duncan C. Scott, 28 July, 1919, Department of Indian Mairs, NAC, Black Senes, RG10, vol. 4089, nle 521, 804.

53 The Indian Act, R.S. 1978, S. 11 (l)(c) as cited in Kathleen Jarnieson, Indian Women and the Law in Canada: Citizem Minus (Ottawa: Advisory Council on the Statu of Womenhdian Rights for Indian Women, 1978).

54 One of the judges during the 1920s case concluded that Takood's family had lived ui "Stanley Park" since "tirne immemorial" or at least "for a substantial period of time prior to Manion's arrïvai...antedating the gold rush of 1858," Reason for Judgement, Judge J.A. Martin, Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (1925), 98-100. Two Native witnesses, Emma Gonzalves and Ambrose Johnson, testified that upon the arriva1 of Europeans, Brockton Point was home to Klaw Chaw or Dr. Johnson, another man named Marshall, Indian Charlie and Policeman Tom who lived in three buildings that were also utilised as "Indian dance houses." These people left theù homes in the 1860s and moved to "the other side of Hastings Mill" since, as Ambrose Johnson (Klaw Chaw's son) testified "that is where the Indians used to live, there." It is unclear fiom this evidence if these Native people lefi the space and moved to an "Indian village" of their own fiee will, or if they were compelled to move to an Indian reserve. Nevertheless, this evidence indicates that Takood and her father Klaw Chaw lived in "Stanley Park" pnor to Manion's anival, Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cumrnings, (1 9Z), 39.

55 Margaret Percevel to Hon. H.H.. Stevens, 23 April, 1923 and Margaret Percevel to Hon. Mr. MacKenzie King, 23 Apd, 1923, Department of Indian AEairs, NAC, Black Series, RG10, vol. 4089, file 521,804.

C.C. Perry, Man Agent to Duncan Scott, 21 May, 1923 and C.C. Perry to Duncan Scott, 31 May, 1923, Department of lndian AEairs, NAC, Black Series, RG10, vol. 4089, Ele 521,804;

57 Andrew Pad (Delepte ) to Duncan C. Scott, 8 April, 1925, Department of Indian AfEkirs, Black Senes, RG10, vol. 4089, file 521, 804.

58 W.E. Ditchbum, Indian Commissioner for British Columbia to Duncan C. Scott, 12 May, 1925, Department of Indian Affairs, Black Senes, RGIO, vol. 4089, file 52 1,804.

59 Duncan C. Scott to Major General E. Fiset, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, 19 August, 1919 and W.E. Ditchburn, Chief Inspecter of Indian Agencies to Duncan C. Scott, 28 July, 1919, Dept. of Indian Affairs, Black Series, RG10, vol.. 4089, file 521, 804.

60 W.E. Ditchbum to Duncan Scot& 28 July, 19 19, Department of Indian AfEairs, Black Series, RGIO, vol. 4089, file 521, 804.

61 Office of the Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence to Duncan C. Scott, 12 May, 1923, Department of Indian Mairs, Black Series, RGI O, vol. 4089, file 52 1, 804.

62 Duncan C. Scott to C.C. Perry, May 17, 1923, Dept. of Indian Mairs, Black Series, RGlO, vol. 4089, file 521,804.

63 Office of the Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence to Duncan C. Scott7 March 17, 1924, Dept of uidian Affairs, Black Senes, RG10, vol. 4089, file 521, 804.

64 "Land is Held by W.C. Shelley", Province, 15 January, 1926, Records of the Board of Parks and Recreation, City of Vancouver Archives, 50-F-1, file 1, Album of Newsclippings and Photographs, 1925-3 1.

65 Wilton Hyde, "Last Man in the Park," BC Magazine, July 6, 1957.

66 Mac Reynold, "Park Squatter's Getting Lonely," The Vancouver Sun, May 10, 1955. 67 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Aped Gonzalves, 132.

68 Barman, The West Beyond the West, 171.

69 "Supreme Court Decision," Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Cummings, 14.

70 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the Ci& of Vancouver v Cummings, 24.

71 Tmcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Awed Godves, 80.

72 "Reasons for Judgment, Murphy, J.," Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Cummings, 89.

73 Henry Reynolds, neLaw of the Land. 1987. 2nd ed. (Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1992), 13, 19-22.

74 Mary Louise Pratf Imperid Eyes: Travel Writing and Trans~Zturation(London and ~ewYork: Routlege, 1992): 149-153.

75 Pratt, Imperia2 Eyes, 153.

76 "Reasons for Judgment, Murphy, J.," Transcript, Aftorney Generd of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Cummings, 89.

77 "Seasonal Papers (No. 68A)," Correspondence and Papers in Refeence tu Stanley Park and Deadman's Island, British Columbia (Ottawa: Printed by Order of Parliameni, 1899), 20. (BCARS 971 .lVaC212c)

78 Office of Deputy Minister, Dept. of National Defence to Duncan C. Scott, Department of Indian Affairs, Black Series, RG10, vol. 4089, file 521,804.

"Squatters Move From Park Are&" Star, 10 July, 1931, hmRecords of the Board of Parks and Recreation, CVA, 50-F-1, file 1, Album of Newsclippings and Photographs, 1925-3 1. * "Squatters are Ousted 60x11 Park," Province, 7 July, 1925, fi0111 Records of the Board of Parks and Recreation, CVA, 50-F-1, file 1, Album of Newsclippings and Photographs, 1925-3 1. 83 "Last of Squatters Must Vacate Hornes," The Vancouver Sun, Feb- 24, 193 1; "Squatters to Get Rent for 2 Years," Province, 28 May, 1931; "Squatters' Houses in Park Destroyed," Province, 25 June, 193 1; "Squatters Move From Park Area," Star, 10 Jdy, 193 1, from Records of the Board of Parks and Recreation, CVA, 50-F-1, file 1, Album of Newsclippings and Photographs, 1925-3 1.

84 Wiiton Hyde, "Last Man in the Park," BC Màgazïne, 6 July, 1957 and Mac Reynold, "Park Squatter's Getting Lonely," me Vancouver Sun, 10 May, 1955. CONCLUSION 1 finished writing this thesis in Tadoussac, a beautifid littie French Canadian village that is situated at the meeting of two rivers, the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay. One of the most magnincent places in the region is a provincial park where gigantic and ancient sand dunes nse in an ahost vertical plane frum a gorgeous stretch of beach and rock overlooking the St. Lawrence. The dunes are magical. 1 was drawn to them- 1think one of the main reasons

why I found them so captivahg was that there were three abandoned homes situated just at the edge of both the water and the dunes. It seemed to me that these buildings, like ancient trees of a forest, housed the secrets of the human and natural history of the sand dunes. They bore the weathered signs of having endured many years of the bright

merSUI as well as the harsh winter winds of the St. Lawrence. Amidst the broken

glass and the shredded bits of curtain still hanging fkom the windows, lay a number of oil paintings -- mostly of the view fiom the windows of the homes. These were the only belongings that were left behind. One day 1 amived to find the houses demolished. It was on that day that I found out that it was the park authorities who had recently forced these people to leave their homes.

While writing the history of Stanley Park it has become increasingly apparent to me that this story is far from unique. On my joumey across Canada this year an astonishing number of people have told me stones of people who have been dispossessed from parks throughout the country. Some of these stories are about Native people, some are not. Some of these stories are about people who have lost homes that have been in thek families for generations while others are about peopIe who Iost their sumrner cottages. Some of these stones are about poor people who have made homes for themselves in urban parks out of anything nom tents to cardboard boxes. These conversations have consolidated rny conviction that in order to fully understand the history of parks we must consider the people they displace. The "respectable" among the British-based settler society of the new city of Vancouver were trying to establish a sense of home for themselves in an mfimiIiar land. One of the ways they set out to do this was through the making of a park. Yet many Native people, and Iater some Chinese men and a handful of working-class European men, who partnered with Native women, had established their sense of home in the very park that was so central to the identity of this more powerful group of settlers. Stanley Park has long been considered Vancouver's most cherished symbol. It is the place that represents the land and our relationship to it, where we have corne from and what we stand for as a group of people. This thesis has show that that symbolism is real, but that it runs *deeperand in ways that most of us do not consider. The history of Stanley Park is aiso symbotic of how Vancouver, once a stronghold of Coast Salish culture and society, was remade into a place in which people of British cultural background, and particularly those ofeconomic privilege, came to feel at home. For the history of "Stanley Park," however, there is still much left to explore. In particular, the degree to which Coast Saiish peoples' relationship to the land endured and continued to contest the understanding of the space as a park, is only bnefly explored in this thesis. 1 thuik it wodd aiso be fhitfbl to delve deeper into the ways by which Native peoples' relationship to "Stanley Park" has been and continues to be represented and the extent to which Native peoples have had control over such representations. The totem poles and "," for instance, bring up many issues, such as the extent to which they are representations of Native continuity with the land, or appropriations that further enforce the writing of the space as a park. Like the "birthing ceremony" of the park over Supple Jack's grave, are these examples of how Native people's relationship with the land was constnicted as part of the past -- reduced to historical anecdote? 1s it culture, as well as nature, that parks preserve? Cao Native people, cm any people, have a conternporary and dynamic cuitUral relationship with a space defhed as a park?

During the 1990s:

A Vancouver Courier headline rad, "Natives say park theirs." In the accompanying article, Musqueam Councilor Jim Kew indicates that "he doesn't have to explain their intents or reasons for wanting Stanley Park. The area is signincant to his people and thatfs ali others have to know."l

During the early dam and at dusk "Stanley Park" becomes a fishing resource site for Asian families.

Squattersf tents are still spotted in the dense bush of "Stanley Park."

Land is malleable. There is infinite potential. Kerry Gold, "Natives Say Park Theirs," The Vicouver Courier, 86,46,7 lune, 1995, 1. Abbreviations

BCARS British Columbia Archives and Record Service NAC National Archives of Canada CVA City of Vancouver Archives VPLSP Vancouver Public Library Special Collections

P-Y SOURCES

Archiva1 Sources, Collections, Court Transcrïpts, and Government Sources

Archeological Surveys and Field Notes: Don Abbot, Field notes, September 1955, Joan Hughes, Archeology Survey, 20 June 1962, and ND.Long, Archeological Site Survey, 5 November 1955, University of British Columbia, Archeology Lab

City Clerk Inward Correspondence, City of Vancouver Archives, particularly RG2, Al, ~01.3, 1890; RG2, Al, ~01.10, 1896; RG2, Al, ~01.15,1899

Colonial Correspondence, BCARS, B-1343,969; B-13 11, 194

Department of lndian Mairs, Black Series, "Re: Stanley Park", National Archives of Canada, RGIO, volume 4089, file 521,804

Joint Indian Reserve Commission Records, NAC, RG10, vol. 3639, £Xe 7416 AC. Anderson Diary as [ndian Reserve Commissioner, November 13, 1876, Vancouver Public Library Special Collections (VPLSC). George Blenkuisop with the Joint Reserve Commission, Census, British Columbia Indians, 1876-1877, Department of Indian Mairs, NAC, RG88, vol. 494. Arch McKinley, Journal, November 17,1876, BCARS, EC M2 1A Correspondence fiom Commissioners to Chief of Lands, BCARS, GR144 1, file 2828/76.

Matthews, Major J. S., comp ., Conversations with Miahtsahlano, 1932-I 951. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Archives 1955 comp, Early Vancouver, CVA, vol. 1, II, III The Naming and Opening and Dedication of Stanley Park, 1888-1889. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Archives 1954 Topical FiZes including "Stanley Park: Opening" ,"Stanley Park: Lumberman's Arch," "Stanley Park: Supple Jack," "Stanley Park: Supplejack - Khaytulk," "Stanley Park: Indians, Villages, Pictograph Rock," "Small pox (Hartney Papes). City of Vancouver Archives

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Park Commissioners, particularly 1888, 1889,1890, 1921,1922, CVA, Microfilms 1,2 and 47

Records of the Board of Parks and Recreation, CVA, 50-F- 1, file 1, Album of Newsclippings and Photographs, 1925-3 1

Sessional Papers, No. 68A Correspondence and Papers in Reference ro Stanley Park and Deadman's Island, British Columbia. Ottawa: Printed by Order of Parliament 1899 @CARS 97l.lVaC212c.)

T~cript,Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Agnes Cummings, (I925), National Archives of Canada, RG 125, vol. 523, file 5074,28 Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Mq DeKosta, 1925), VPLSC, Wl.133v22ca Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the Ciry of Vancouver v Alfied Gonzdves, (1925), VPLSC, 971.133v22ca Transcript, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Edivard Long, (1925), VPLSC, 971.133vS2ca Transcnpt, Attorney General of Canada and the City of Vancouver v Peter Smith, (19251, VPLSC, 971 S33v22ca

PeriodicaIs and Newspapers

Nelson, Denys, "Some Origins of Place Names of Greater Vancouver," in hfseum Notes (Art, Historical and Scientific Association of Vancouver), III, 3, September 1928, 5 - 10.

BC Magazine, 1957 The Province, 1925, 1926,1930,193 1 The Vancouver Courier, 1995. The Vancouver Sun, 193 1, 1943,1955.

Contemporary Legal Case

Opening statements as well as one citation (recorded by myself as a witness to the case) nom the testimony of Dr. Michael Kew, Joe Mathias and the Squamish Indian Band et al. v Her Majesty the Queen, Chief Wendy Grant und the Musqueam Indian Band et a[. v Her Majeso the Queen in Right of Canada et al., Leonard George as Chief;and the Burrard Indian Band et al. v Her Majesîy the Queen in Right of Canada et al. (1996) SECONDARY SOURCES

Books

Anderson, Kay . Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1 980. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991.

Bailey, Peter. Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Contestfor Control, 1830-1885. London: 1978.

Barman, Jean. fie West Beyond the West: A History of British Columbia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Barnett, Homer. The Coast Salish of British Columbia. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1955.

Bhabba, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

Bramweil, Anna. EcoZogy in the 20th Century, A History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989.

Coates, Kenneth. Besr Le# as Indium: Native- White Relations in the Yukon Territory, 1840-19 73. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1 99 1.

Carter, PauL The Road to Botany Bay: An Eqloration of Landxape ond Xistory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Carter, Sarah. LOS^ Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Poiicy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990.

Chadwick, George F. The Park and the Town: Public LandFcape in the 19th and 20th Centuries- London: 1966.

Dippie, Bïian W. The VunishingAmerican: White Attitudes and US. Indian Policy. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 199 1.

DufT, Wilson. The Upper Stdo Indians. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum Department of Education, 1952.

Fisher, Robin. Contact and Conflict: Indian-Europeun Relations Nt British Columbin, 1774-1890. Vancouver: University of British CoIumbia Press, 1977. Fisher, Robin and Ken Coates, eds. Our of the Background- Readings on Canadian Native Literature. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitrnan Ltd., 1988.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: meBirth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Foster, Janet Workingfor WiZdlife: The Beginning of Presentation in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.

H&s, Cole. meResettZement ofBritish Columbia: Essqs on ColoniaIism and Geographical Change. Vancouver: Universiiy of British Columbia Press, 1997.

W-Tout, Charles. The Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume U: The Squamish and the Lillooet. ed. Mph Maud. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978.

Hill-Tout, Charles, Th Salish People, The Local Contribution of Chmles Hill-Tout, Volume Nr The Sechelt and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Islmrd. ed. Raulph Maud. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1978.

Jamieson, Kathleen. Indian Women and the Lmin Canada: Cifizens Mlnus. Ottawa: Advisory Council on the Status of Womenhdian Rights for Indian Women, 1978.

Knight, Rol f Indiam at Work: An Informal History of Native Indian Labo w in British Columbia, 1858-1930. Vancouver: New Star Books, 1978.

Lamb, Kaye W., ed. The Voyage of George Vancouver, 1791-1 795. vol LI. Second Series, no. 164. London: The Hakluyt Society 1984

Leier, Mark. Red Flags and Red Tape: The Making of a Labour Bureuucracy . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Loo, Tina Muking Law, Order and Authority in British Columbia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

McDonald, Robert, A.J. Making Vancouver: Class, Status and Social Boundaries, 1863-19I3. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996.

McFarland, Elsie, M The Development of Public Recreation in Canada. Vanier, Ontario, 1970.

Miller, J. R Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian- White Relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989. Nash, Rodenck. WiZderness and the American MTnd. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973.

Newell, Dianne. Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada!s Pacifc Coast Fisheries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Ponting, J.R and R Gibbons. Out of IneZevance: A Socio-Political Introduction to Indian Aflairs in Canada. Toronto: Butterworth and Company Ltd, 1980.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperia1 Eyes: Travel Writing and Tramculturation. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.

Reynolds, Henry. îleLaw of the Land. 1987.2nd ed. Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1992.

Robin, Martin. The Rush for Spoils: The Company Province, I87I-1933. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972.

Said, Edward. Culîure and lmperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Silman, Janet (as told to). Enough is Enough: AborigiMI Women Speak Out- Toronto: Women's Press, 1987.

Steele, Richard M The Stanley Park Explorer. Vancouver: Whitecap Books, 1985.

Vancouver Board of Parh and Recreation: The First 100 Years. Vancouver: Board of Parks and Recreation, 1988.

Vancomer 's Famous Stanley Park: The Year-round Playgro und. Surrey : Heritage House, 1993.

Suttles, Wayne. Coast Salish Essays. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1 987.

Temant, Paul. Aboriginal People and Politicsr The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989-Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1991.

Tidey, E. Brian. A Narrow Vision: Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986.

Tobey, G.B. A History of Landrcape Architecture: The Relationship of People to Environment. New York, 1973. Vademan, Lynn and Freda Carr. A Guide tu Stanley Park. Vancouver: Seaside fublications, 1973.

Wade, Jill, Houses for AZl: The Shuggie for Social Housing in Vancouver, 1919-1950. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1994.

Worster, Donald. Nature !s Economy: A History of Eculogical Idem, Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiiy Press, 1994, onginally published in 1977.

Articles

Blais, Gabrieile. "Preservingthe Balance of Nature: Wildlife Conservation in Canada's National Parks." Archivist 12 (2) (1985), 3-5,

Cavet, Mary Eilen, H. John Selwood, and John C. Lehr. "Social Philosophy and the Early Development of Winnipeg's Parks," Urban History Review 9 (June 1982), 27-39.

Hardy, Stephen. "'Parksfor the People': Reforming the Boston Park System, 1870-1915." Journal of Sport History. 7 (1980), 5-24.

Harley, J.B. "Rereading the Maps of the Columbian Encounter." Annals AAG 82 (3) (September 1992), 522-542.

Harris, Cole. "The Lower Mainland, 1820-8 1," in Graeme Wym and Timothy Oke, eds. Vancouver and Its Region. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1992,38-68.

Keller, Robert. "Haida Land Claims and South Moresby National Park," Arnerican Review of Canadian Studies 20 (1) (1990), 7-30.

Lewis, David Rich. "Still Native: The Sigrilncance of Native Amerïcans in the History of the Twentieth-Cenhiry Amencan West." The Western Historieal Quarterly 2 (1 993),

Lutz, John. "Afterthe Fur Trade: The Abonginal Labouring Class of British Columbia, 1849-1890." Journal of the Canadion Historieal Association. 3 (1992), 69-93.

Loo, Tina. "Dan Cramner's Potlatch: Law as Coercion, Syrnbol and Rhetonc in British Columbia, 1884-195 1." Canadian Historical Review 73 (19W), 125-167.

McCarthy, Michael P. "Politics and Parks: Chicago Businessmen and the State Recreation Movement." Journal of the Illinois Staîe Historical Sociery LXV (1972), 158-72. McDonald, Robert A.J. "Lumber Society on the Industrial Frontier: Burrard Met, 1863-1886," Labour/Le Travail, 33 (Spring 1994), 69-96.

"'Holy Retreat' or 'Practical Breathing Spot1?:Class Perceptions of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 1910- 1913." Canadiun Historical Review LXV,2 (1984), 227-1 53.

McKee, Wiam, C.] "The Vancouver Park System, 1886-1929: A Product of Local Businessmen." Urban History Review 3 (1W8), 33-49.

Murray, A.L. "Frederic Law Ohsted and the Design of Mount Royal Park." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historiuns 26 (1967), 163-71.

Pattemon, E. Palmer II. "Andrew Paull(1890-1959) Finding a Voice for the New Indian." Western Canadian Jownal of Anthropology. 6(2) (1976), 63-80.

Rosenzweig, Roy. "Middle-Class Parks and Working-Class Play: The Stniggle over Recreational Space in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1870-19 10. " Rudicol History Review 21(Fa11, 1979), 3 1-46.

Roue, Joseph. "Power/Knowledge," in Gary Gutting, ed., The Cambridge Cornpanion to Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Smyth, David. "The Cave and Basin Hot Springs." Berner 3,5 (3) (Winter 1984/85), 46-5 1.

Unpublished Theses

Clayton, Daniel. "Islands of Truth: Vancouver Island fiom Captain Cook to the Beginnings of Colonization." University of British Columbia, Ph.D. thesis, 1995.

Chris Roine. "The Squamish Aboriginal Economy, 1860-1940.'' Simon Fraser University, MA thesis, 1996.

Stadfeld, Bruce Colin. "Manifestations of Power: Native Response to Settiement in Nieteenth Century British Columbia." Simon Fraser Universi@, MA thesis, 1993. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED A INLAGE . lnc --- 1653 East Main Street --.- - Rochester, NY 14609 USA ------Phone: 716/482-0300 ------Fax: 71 61288-5989