Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
How can you discovery something the existence of which has already been established although those that proclaim it discovered were mistaken. Gold was found in California w/early explorers along Colorado River & near Mexican era Los Angeles in 1832 so existence of gold only confirmed not discovered in 1848 although the find was reason for the 1849 Rush, the latter the unique part of incident. To say that gold was discovered in California in 1848 is an ethnocentric statement as well as an example of ignorance by those that either do not want to acknowledge that gold had already been verified as being in California therefore it cannot be a discovery. Finding more gold is not a discovery but a re-confirmation of the existence of gold in the area.
If the description of the find as "discovery" is based on the text of "From Mexican Days to Gold Rush: Memoirs of...Who Grew Up with California" (Edited by Doyce B. Nunis, Jr by Marshall, James Wilson & Edward Gould Buffum]. "Marshall was born at Hopewell, NJ, went to California in 1845, participated in the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, and discovered gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848.") all the more substantiate the ethnocentricity of the word "discovery" discounting the period of history and activities that occurred in California during its Mexican, Spanish and indigenous peoples periods. You cannot discovery that which already has been proven to exist; just confirm. Buffum et al were not aware of the history of California when they wrote their book so for them to describe it as a discovery is appropriate for their time but not in the spectrum of history. Just like Troy and Schliemann. We know better now than then. W rests with those facts that represent the long term not short-sighted ignorance.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Whatever. Tired of arguing about it. You win. PS - Next time you want to make minor wording tweaks, don't make a soap box speech about it, just do it. Soap box speeches invoke knee-jerk reactions especially when they come form anonymous ip's. Oh, and get a regular username, for crying out out. Famartin (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
