Military Review

Friendly relations with the Indians were the strategic advantage of the Russians in California

43

Promotion of the Russian-American company in the southern direction, which became in the 1800-ies. strategic task, needed to legitimize and support from the Russian government. The Cancer itself did not have the strength to succeed in such an expansion. Baranov appeals to the main board of the cancer and foreign minister, N. P. Rumyantsev, to take this situation into account and, at the same time, to prevent foreign colonization, at least "show the view." It was about the occupation by the Russian Empire of the coast of New Albion, that is, Oregon and Northern California. This was the dream of Rezanov. Such a step in combination with the deterrence of the “Bostonians” and the opening of trade with Canton and Spanish California, according to Baranov, was supposed to ensure the prosperity of cancer.


Baranov sent Rumyantsev a corresponding report of July 1 from 1808, and the main board of the RAK 5 in November 1809 presented reports to Emperor Alexander I and NP. Rumyantsev, on the basis of which the latter prepared a report to the king. In the report, the Kuskov expedition was motivated by Baranov’s desire to outrun the Americans, who planned to establish a settlement on the r. Columbia, and the company's marketing activities in California were camouflaged by Kuskov’s order to “barter for expensive wild furs there”. That is, the king, as it were, was confronted with the accomplished fact of the creation of a temporary Russian settlement in New Albion, which needs state protection, especially from the machinations of the Americans. Baranov reported that because of the small number of contingents, the company could not arrange a solid colony and create a fortress. He proposed to create a government settlement, so that it was under the protection of the state. 1 December 1809 Mr. Rumyantsev informed the CANCER of the decision of Alexander I, who “refusing to make a settlement in Albion in the present case, provides the Board with the will to establish it himself, encouraging in any case the monarch’s intercession”. Thus, the “highest” permission to begin the Russian colonization of New Albion was received, but the king retained the freedom of diplomatic maneuver.

New expedition Kuskov and the foundation of the fort

Until the decision of St. Petersburg, Baranov refrained from new expeditions to New Albion. Only at the beginning of 1811, Mr. Baranov sent an 2 expedition led by Kuskov to California on the ship “Chirikov”. The expedition was associated with the threat of American colonization of the r. Colombia. Baranov considered US expansion from this bridgehead across the coast between the Russian and Spanish possessions as the most likely prospect. The common goal of the expedition, as during the previous Kuskov expedition, was fishing on the shores of New Albion and exploring this region with “very careful attention and remarks to the future device if the government allowed it to be there”. Baranov had not yet received formal government approval for the establishment of a colony and was forced to limit the objectives of the expedition only by fishing and even more thorough intelligence.

The expedition leader was required to thoroughly examine the place of possible colonization, as well as "and all the district ... coastal places" from Bodega and Drake's Bay to Cape Mendocino and Trinidad, "also inside the land, as far as possible," including the inspection and description of the situation "Forests, rivers, lakes and lands. The entire coast south of Mendocino needed to be explored in detail in canoes, combining with the fishing, and above all the coves and bays: "will not the convenient and safe anchor and fishing places be opened?" In the “port of Rumyantsev”, so Baranov, in honor of the patron saint of Cancer, decided to name the most convenient parking place in Bodega Bay (the so-called “Small Bodiego”), the head of Russian America ordered to build earthworks - “a small redoubt”, which was supposed to contain expedition and serve as a defense against possible attacks by natives or Spaniards. In the parking lot Kuskov was supposed to start agricultural activities. The possibility of contact with the Spaniards on the subject of trade was expressed.

In February, the 1811 expedition arrived at Bodega. Pieces sent 22 kayaks to the San Francisco Bay. There they met the party of T. Tarakanov and the party under the supervision of Losev, who were engaged in fishing. The total number of kayaks in the bay has reached almost 140. The fishing here was successful, and on July 28 Kuskov returned to Novo-Arkhangelsk.

There is no exact information, but Fort Ross founded the 3 or 4 expedition of Kuskov in February-March of the 1812 of the year. Having received the long-awaited message from St. Petersburg, Baranov immediately sent a new expedition to establish a colony. With Kuskov, 25 was a man of Russian artisans and roughly 80-90 Aleuts. Kuskov decided to establish a colony 15 versts above the Slavyanka river. The construction of the walls began on March 15 1812. It was difficult to build, despite the fact that the forest was very close, but it was difficult to carry the logs into the manual one. Part of the settlers chopped wood and built walls, others - dragged trees from the forest. By the end of August, the fortress walls were enclosed in a place, on two opposite corners they erected 2 two-story bastions in which they originally lived.

The walls of the fort looked solid and impressive, had a height of 3,5 meters and were built from heavy thick blocks about 20 cm thick. The layout of Fort Ross was in many ways reminiscent of the wooden forts built by Russian pioneers in Siberia. The walls of the fort and most of the buildings located inside it were made of redwoods. Two somewhat protruding towers allowed observing the approaches to all four walls of the fort. For the defense of the settlement installed 12 guns. 30 August 1812, “they set a day for raising the flag on the fortress - for this in the middle of it, a mast with a topper was dug into the ground. After reading the usual prayers raised the flag with a gun and rifle firing. The fortress was named Ross - “by drawing lots, placed before the icon of the Savior”. Thus, the idea of ​​Russian California began to be realized.

Friendly relations with the Indians were the strategic advantage of the Russians in California


Indigenous Relationships

For a settlement founded so far from the rest of the Russian colonies, relations with neighbors acquired particular importance. Ross security was largely determined by relations with the Indians and Spaniards. Peace and alliance with the Indians was a pledge of security not only for the settlements, but also a serious factor in interstate relations, as it allowed Russia to gain a foothold in this region. The company simply did not have a significant number of people to force the new lands to be approved. The version of the Russian side here was this: Russians colonize lands not occupied by other powers, with the consent of the local population who voluntarily ceded lands to them under the colony, and the natives are not only independent of Spain, but also hostile to the Spaniards. In general, this version corresponded to the real state of affairs. Therefore, Baranov in the instructions constantly noted the need to arrange for the Russian Californian natives.

The Indians, with whom the Russian colonists maintained regular contacts, belonged to three ethnic communities. The immediate neighbors of the Russian fortress were Kashaya (south-west Pomo), who lived in the coastal region approximately between the mouths of the r. Russian (Slav) and Gualala. To the east of Ross, in the valley of the river. Russian, lived southern Pomo, and in the south, near the Bay of Bodega, - coastal mivok. Occasionally the Russians had contacts, apparently, with the central Pomo, which lived north of Kashaya and the southern Pomo. The locals looked much more peace-loving and less armed, as well as smaller in number than the warlike and numerous tribes belonging to the economic and cultural type of the north-west coast. This was one of the factors that determined the place of choice of the settlement.

According to the testimony of the Indians themselves (apparently coastal mivok), recorded by the Franciscan M. Payeras from Christianized Indians, the Russians bought a place for settlement, giving the chief a quality 3 blanket, 3 pairs of trousers, beads, 2 ax and 3 hoes. Thus, the settlement was built with the permission of the local natives.

In Ross 22 in September 1817, an official meeting was held between L. A. Gagemeister and the surrounding Indian leaders, recorded by a special act (preserved in copy), which was signed by Gagemeister, Kuskov, Khlebnikov and a number of officials from Kutuzov. The meeting was attended by "chiefs of the Indians Chu-gu-an, Amat-tang, Ghem-le-le with others." The conversation was conducted through a translator. The Gagemeister, on behalf of the RAC, thanked the leaders for “giving the Company land on the fortress, dispensations and establishments.” Chu-gu-an and Amat-tang replied, "that they are very pleased with the occupation of this place by the Russians," ensuring their safety. Gifts were made to the guests, and Chu-gu-an, who was named the "main" toenomg, was awarded the Allied Russia silver medal. He was announced that the medal "gives him the right to the respect of the Russians ... and imposes on him the duty of affection and help if the case demands it; to which both he and the others declared readiness ... "

Thus, the legality of the stay of Russians in California, the assignment of land for settlement was confirmed. Indians expressed loyalty to Russians and satisfaction with the nature of their relations. The document was of diplomatic importance, being an argument in a dispute with Spain. The Spaniards could see that, in spite of their protest, the Cancer owned Ross "legally" and did not offend the Indians.

It is worth noting that there is no reason to doubt the reliability of this information. The local people were really interested in the presence of the Russians and were looking for their union and patronage, were generally friendly towards the newcomers from the north. If on the northwest coast there are contacts of the indigenous population with foreigners (in particular, with the Americans, who supplied the Indians weapons) created a permanent source of concern for cancer, then, on the contrary, the Spanish colonization, which threatened the coastal coastal zone, gave the Russians, in their person, allies. At the beginning of the XIX century. Spanish missions were already “hunting” for Indians in the territories north of the Bay of San Francisco. And the Indians hoped that the Russians would protect them from the Spaniards. This particularly applies to coastal expeditions, the primary victims of Spanish raids.

As a result, friendly relations with the Indians were a strategic advantage of the Russians in California. This is confirmed by many sources, in particular the notes of the officers who visited Bodega in September 1818 of the sloop "Kamchatka". In a conversation with Matyushkin Kuskov, complaining about the Spaniards, he said that "the only wild attachment to the Russians and the hatred of the Spaniards support him." Matyushkin, apparently from Kuskov’s words, reports that during the Spanish raids on Big Bodega, “all Indian tribes run together under the guns of Ross or in the city of Rumyantsev.” In 1817, the Spaniards actually raided the Bodega area, and when “a lot of people” gathered at Ross asking for protection, Kuskov “persuaded them to sit in the forests and ravines of the mountains and then inadvertently attack the Spaniards. The wild ones obeyed him and settled in the forest, which is visible ... to the side of Big Bodegi. But the Spaniards, having learned this, abandoned their persecution. ”

The leader of the coastal villages Valennil, who visited Kamchatka, according to the ship’s commander V. Golovkin, in an interview with him “wanted more Russians to settle between them so that they could protect the inhabitants from oppression of the Spaniards.” In 1824, imprisoned in San Francisco fortress, Indian leader Pomponio (soon shot by the Spaniards) said to DI Zavalishin: “We know that you came to take this land from the damned Spaniards and free the poor Indians! The Indian will then be fine! ”Pomponio, a fugitive from the San Francisco mission, was a native of the San Rafael district, that is, he belonged to the coastal mivoc. Therefore, it is not surprising that he pinned his hopes on the Russians.

Thus, in general, the Russians and the Indians got along with each other. Moreover, the Indians singled out Russians in comparison with the Spaniards. The Russians did not apply a policy of violence and plunder against Aboriginal people, including the seizure of land and other resources.

However, one should not idealize this relationship. AT stories Russian California, even in the conditions of predominantly peaceful, good-neighborly relations with the Indians, there were separate private conflicts. In particular, there have been cases of the killing of Kadiaks Aleuts by Indians, as well as the theft of horses and other cattle. The perpetrators were usually arrested, forced labor in the colony was their punishment. In addition, the Indian prisoners were sent to Novo-Arkhangelsk, where they worked at the CANCER.

Nor did the Indians hope for an alliance with the Russians against the Spaniards. The presence of the Russians restrained the Spaniards - they did not dare to make raids north of Bodega, and even more north of Ross, who became a kind of shield that protected kashaya and all Indians north of Spanish colonization. However, the Cancer did not want to conflict with the Spaniards, for this there was neither the strength nor the desire. The company sought to preserve peace with all its neighbors, and in specific situations preferred to maintain relations with the Spaniards. In particular, both Russians (although not willingly) and Spaniards mutually betrayed the fugitives. Therefore, relations with the Indians did not become a military alliance.

In general, due to the weakness of RAK in America and St. Petersburg’s lack of a strategy for developing new lands, the administration of Fort Ross did not consider the Indians Russian subjects and did not expand the sphere of influence, although this could be done using the friendly relations of local residents. The leadership of the Cancer gave the installation to be careful, to keep a distance with the natives, not to involve them in the “Russian field”.

The main ruler of M.I. Ants in the prescription of K. Schmidt, he wrote: “Indians are not Russian subjects, they should not take them into their care, now is not the time to think about their education, and not bad, without forcing them to use their labors, so that, without reproach yourself with violence, derive benefit from them for the Company ”. Thus, the “Rules” of 1821 forbade the colonization of undeveloped territories without the consent of the natives, the Indians should not be subordinated (“to take care of”), respectively, there was no need for them to become part of Russian culture (“education”). At the same time, Muravyov calls for action “without coercion,” “not incurring reproach of violence,” while achieving the main goal — the exploitation of the labor of the Indians.

As a result, at this time the Russians in California, on the one hand, did not use violence against the Aborigines, did not rob them, and did not occupy new lands. They were interested in peace with the Indians. On the other hand, the Cancer, having no support in St. Petersburg, could not expand the expansion, so the Russians distanced themselves from the Indians, were extremely cautious, tried to keep peace with the Spaniards.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Lost Russian lands

Lost Lands of Russia: Russians Hawaii
How Westerner Nesselrode ruined the project "Russian Hawaii"
Russians in California
Expedition of Ivan Kuskov
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK 30 June 2016 06: 26
    +1
    It also played out that the West Coast Indians were complaisant in nature and forgave a lot to strangers. Apparently, the merchants who arrived had something to pay, otherwise there is not much to be gained for beautiful eyes. And when the Oldenburg paw reached there, all Kindness was covered with a copper basin
  2. Bayonet
    Bayonet 30 June 2016 06: 45
    +4
    However, few people know that the Russians made attempts to create colonies in Africa, America, and the Pacific Ocean. Little is written about this and they know about it, for example, many will be surprised by the fact that there were Russian colonies in the Hawaiian Islands.
    The Russian colony off the coast of South America could be the island of Tobago, which was a colony of Courland, which became part of the Russian Empire.
    In 1652, the Duke of Courland Jacob took possession of Fr. Tobago off the coast of South America. Over the course of 30 years, 400 Courlandians moved here, and more than 900 Negro slaves were purchased in Africa. In Africa, the Courlandians acquired St. Andrew's Island (James Island, now part of the Gambia).
    However, in 1661, these territories in two hemispheres passed into the use of England: the Duke of Courland actually contributed them as a guarantee for loans. When Courland became part of the Russian Empire, Catherine II until 1795 tried to seize the British islands with these two islands, but to no avail.
    Trinidad is rich in oil and gas. Being relatively close to the United States and the Panama Canal, the island has important strategic importance.
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 30 June 2016 07: 22
      +4
      Quote: Bayonet
      Many, for example, will be surprised by the fact that Russian colonies were in the Hawaiian Islands.

      No surprise. There were trade missions, the RAC was able to establish relations with two kings competing among themselves, and agreed on food supplies to Kamchatka. Relations developed quite successfully and without hostilities, in contrast to the relations of the Hawaiians with the Anglo-Saxons.
    2. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 30 June 2016 09: 46
      0
      Quote: Bayonet
      Catherine II before 1795 tried to seize the British islands with these two islands, but to no avail.

      Beautiful and extremely rare data! But there, everything seemed to be legally correct.
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 30 June 2016 07: 22
    0
    On the subject: read the book by Sergei Markov "Yukon Raven", although there are times a little later described and not so historical, rather artistic, but interesting.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 30 June 2016 07: 44
    +1
    the Russians bought a place for settlement, giving the leader 3 pay blankets, 3 pairs of trousers, beads, 2 axes and 3 hoes. Thus, the settlement was built with the permission of local natives. ..And it should be noted not expensive ...
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 30 June 2016 09: 47
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      the Russians bought a place for the settlement, giving the leader quality boards 3 blankets, 3 pairs of trousers, beads, 2 axes and 3 hoes.

      Well, yes, a little more expensive than Manhattan - for a few bundles of beads.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 30 June 2016 20: 07
        0
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        Well, yes, a little more expensive than Manhattan - for a few bundles of beads.

        So after all, all the talk about how we, Russians, and Indians lived in perfect harmony is more like a beautiful fairy tale. How many indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Far East have we moved from their lands? They didn’t drive them into the reservation, no doubt, but still a lot of blood was shed. The same Ermak with his associates was not a pacifist at all. You really need to look at things and perceive your ancestors as they really were.
        1. AK64
          AK64 30 June 2016 23: 46
          0
          So after all, all the talk about how we, Russians, and Indians lived in perfect harmony is more like a beautiful fairy tale. How many indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Far East have we moved from their lands? They didn’t drive them into the reservation, no doubt, but still a lot of blood was shed. The same Ermak with his associates was not a pacifist at all. You really need to look at things and perceive your ancestors as they really were.

          All this is certainly good, but only after all, Kuchum and his “Tatars” were not at all local. They were alien, literally 10 years before Yermak's campaign, fellow "Tatars" came to those lands, along the Irtysh from Kazakhstan. And they were also far from pacifists. Yermak, by the way, had no problems with the locals, namely the local ones, that is, the Voguls (Khanty, Mansi). And the yasak did not differ from that established by Kuchum before.

          And in the rest of Siberia: there is no need to think that there was a rank, a way, and peace and airspace --- the war went on everywhere between peoples and tribes: for example, the Buryats, and the Yakuts (who are Kurykans) slaughtered the Tungus, etc. In this sense, the Russians carried precisely peace and order.

          As a word, the Spaniards are in America. (Unlike the Anglo-Saxons)
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 30 June 2016 23: 47
          0
          Khan Kuchum was also not a pacifist. And as soon as they begin to expose the Russians in "non-pacifism" and "colonialism", they immediately forget about everyone else.
  5. peta locksmith
    peta locksmith 30 June 2016 07: 59
    +5
    damn it, our ancestors tried so hard that Russia grew into territories, and this ebn labeled with a drunkard all tore ...
  6. EwgenyZ
    EwgenyZ 30 June 2016 08: 23
    +1
    Friendly relations with the Indians were a strategic advantage of the Russians

    And not only with the Indians, but, in general, with all the aborigines with whom the Russians settled nearby. That is why we managed to save most of the territories, and the Europeans "failed ..." their empires, because the natives were talking cattle to them.
    1. madjik
      madjik 30 June 2016 09: 49
      +5
      what kind of friendships? less evil Europeans did is yes! I remember the Tlingit Indians completely burned the same New Arkhangelsk! not just like that? it was necessary to deceive less! where trinkets did not work there was fire water)))) everything is as old as the world, the more experience of Siberia was.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 30 June 2016 10: 38
        +1
        Quote: madjik
        I remember the Tlingit Indians completely burned the same New Arkhangelsk! not just like that?

        The Bashkirs also burned down Russian villages. Only during the uprising of Kondraty Bulavin there were about 200 Russian settlements, in the 18th century, a mass of large and small uprisings against the "Uruses", including participation in the Pugachev rebellion, but then they helped drive "Bonaparte himself to the city of Paryzh" and even, in passing, gave Goethe archery lessons. The Russians met the fiercest resistance in Yakutia, and then everything settled down there. When they climb into a strange monastery with their own charter, then the "graters" begin. Gayropeys and mattress toppers still cannot understand this. And the Tlingits, by the way, had the most terry slavery, so the for etabout.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 30 June 2016 14: 47
          +3
          The most fierce resistance was not in Yakutia, but in Chukotka, do not confuse. And the Yakuts, along with the Russians, advanced and developed new territories. Before the arrival of the Russians, the area of ​​settlement of the Yakuts was much smaller than in the subsequent period. The Yakuts served as intermediaries between the Russian and local underdeveloped, small and multilingual tribes.
          1. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 30 June 2016 14: 59
            +2
            The Komi played the same intermediary role in relations with the Nenets and other small anrodes of the European North of Russia. Is it not in vain that the prosperity of both the Yakuts and the Komi were noted in the pre-revolutionary editions, and they were called half-jokingly, respectively, "Siberian Jews" and "Northern Jews"? And if we take the small peoples, then among them the same Nenets in terms of prosperity, sociability and a kind of everyday cunning differed favorably from other small peoples of the North and Siberia.
            The Chukchi also had a very specific position. Honestly, they terrorized representatives of other neighboring small nations.
            1. AK64
              AK64 30 June 2016 15: 10
              0
              The Chukchi also had a very specific position. Honestly, they terrorized representatives of other neighboring small nations.


              Exactly. In fact, the government did not have the slightest interest in Chukotka.
              There, they banally harnessed for the yakagirs who were robbed by the Chukchi
        2. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 30 June 2016 19: 48
          0
          = V.ic "Only during the Kondraty Bulavin uprising there were about 200 Russian settlements."
          It seems to me with the Bulavin uprising that you were mistaken because it was on the Don.
      2. EwgenyZ
        EwgenyZ 30 June 2016 14: 39
        0
        madjik
        Tlingits completely burned the same New Arkhangelsk!

        Well, we also fought with the Chukchi and the peoples of the North Caucasus (not all, nevertheless), and now we live together, in one "house". But the remnants of the British Empire are again on the eve of a new collapse.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 30 June 2016 14: 49
          0
          Correction The British Empire included territories outside Great Britain, Ireland, and crown lands. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland together constituted the metropolis. The only thing that with respect to the Irish Catholics, politics was at times openly colonial in nature.
    2. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 30 June 2016 09: 51
      +2
      Quote: EwgenyZ
      That is why we managed to save most of the territories, and the Europeans "failed ..." their empires

      Strongly disagree. Google the term neocolonialism and the British Commonwealth of Nations.
      1. EwgenyZ
        EwgenyZ 30 June 2016 14: 33
        0
        Mikhail Matyugin
        British Commonwealth of Nations
        the same "cloud in pants" as the CIS, it seems it is, but it seems not. It is enough to look at the map of the beginning of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st: which British (French, German, etc.) empire was then and what is now. And neo-colonialism is a rather "slippery" thing - access to minerals is available while "your" people are in power, and the power has changed (elections, coup, occupation) and now "your" companies are looking from the outside as your competitors extract these same minerals.
        1. AllXVahhaB
          AllXVahhaB 30 June 2016 20: 33
          0
          What happened to Ukraine?
  7. romex1
    romex1 30 June 2016 08: 33
    0
    a time of missed opportunities ... although 1812 was a difficult year ... there was no time for omerigi.
  8. guzik007
    guzik007 30 June 2016 09: 03
    +3
    Interesting ... Just read Bushkov's book "Russian America". So not everything is as rosy as it is described here. In particular, there are also published complaints about Baranov from the local abbot, who accused the latter of extremely cruel treatment of local Indians, literally turning them into slaves. we must remember that RAC (a Russian-American company) was a purely private enterprise, and they did whatever they wanted there. Although, by and large, both Baranov and Shelikhov and, naturally, Rezanov were statesmen with a capital letter. And if Aleksashka didn’t ask ... l, then who knows, Alaska and California could well remain ours.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 30 June 2016 11: 01
      0
      The Americans would hold a referendum there and we would be left without those miserable millions that we received for the deal
      1. AK64
        AK64 30 June 2016 11: 49
        +1
        The Americans would hold a referendum there and we would be left without those miserable millions that we received for the deal


        Actually, they didn’t receive anything% and there was no money paid.

        But in general, you are right:
        (1) they didn’t have the opportunity to hold, and
        (2) The United States was then a strategic ally, so ...

        In principle, this transfer was a declaration of a lack of strategic interest in the Americas.
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 30 June 2016 11: 58
          0
          Wikipedia claims that the archive kept a document on the receipt of money.
  9. AK64
    AK64 30 June 2016 10: 55
    +1
    Late there Cossacks were ...
    The Spaniards actually reached Tijuana (southern California) only in 1704 or 1705: it was then that a post was founded there (something like a monastery and a trading post in one bottle)
    It would be interesting to consider the possibility of creating a state with a center in California. Or at least in Oregon-Montana.
  10. AK64
    AK64 30 June 2016 11: 00
    +1
    In fact, there was no good relationship with the Indians.
    We had good relations with the Eskimos (Aleuts), and so on. But ka kraz with the Indians and no.

    I wonder why?
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 30 June 2016 11: 55
      +3
      Because on their land we found our fur.
      1. AK64
        AK64 30 June 2016 14: 58
        0
        Because on their land we found our fur.

        And with the Eskimos, why no problem?
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 30 June 2016 15: 21
          0
          I understand that the reason is in the more primitive level of the Aleuts who did not have a developed tribal organization and access to other whites. In fact, the RAC exploited the Aleuts forcing to beat a sea otter for a fee and as a tribute. But for them it was not exploitation, but simply a habitual submission to a stronger one. and the Indians with their tribal leaders and weapons were in a slightly different category.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 30 June 2016 14: 52
      0
      Gumilev argues that due to the lack of mutual complementarity, at a not entirely conscious level. That is why for some reason Russians treated the Eskimos and Aleuts better than the Indians. And the Aleuts and the Eskimos themselves also treated the Russians much better than the Indians.
      1. AK64
        AK64 30 June 2016 15: 02
        +2
        Gumilev argues that due to the lack of mutual complementarity, at a not entirely conscious level.

        Gumilyov would also explain what this "complementarity" is.
        And so it's just "and why did you love me a woman?" (Shchedrin. City ..)


        That is why for some reason Russians treated the Eskimos and Aleuts better than the Indians. And the Aleuts and the Eskimos themselves also treated the Russians much better than the Indians.

        Well, here's an option: the Indians fought with the Eskimos (in order to rob, and in general). Cossacks defended the Eskimos, and thereby turned out to be close to one and enemies of the other.

        That's all the "complementarity".

        PS: a similar situation, by the way, was in Chukotka, where the Russians were trivially harnessed to the jumbo Yukagirs (whom the Chukchi robbed)
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 30 June 2016 15: 55
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Gumilyov would also explain what this "complementarity
          Oddly enough, but I personally tend to take it. that he clearly defined a certain occurring phenomenon, the physical nature of which remains to be determined.

          Quote: AK64
          was in Chukotka, where the Russians trite themselves harnessed to the yakagirs
          Well, there all the same, after all, it was a question of "joining possessions" - even if no one needed then, but "so that there were", and a continuous strip to Russian America.
          1. AK64
            AK64 30 June 2016 16: 08
            0
            Oddly enough, but I personally tend to take it. that he clearly defined a certain occurring phenomenon, the physical nature of which remains to be determined.

            "behave like us" - means "normal passes"
            "behave differently from us" - to mean no complementarity to them.
            In my opinion everything is simple.

            And between states in general "there are no friends, there are only temporary allies"

            Well, there all the same, after all, it was a question of "joining possessions" - even if no one needed then, but "so that there were", and a continuous strip to Russian America.

            To do this, it would be enough to put the Anadyr prison, which existed long before the activities of Shestakov and Pavlutsky, and long after.
            And in order to conquer the depth of the territory, it is still commonplace there were no people in those places. (Pavlutsky had a little more than a hundred Russians under arms; the rest of his "four or five hundred" are Yukaghirs.) But for a regular "conquest" it would be necessary to keep garrisons there, even a hundred people. Where can they get them and how can they live?
  11. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 June 2016 12: 10
    +2
    Well, as we see, no "strategic advantages" in the form of friendly relations with the local population helped us. The Anglo-Saxons won, who did not care about the local population, moreover, they deliberately exterminated it, and it was so everywhere. Wherever our "friendly relations" were established, then the Anglo-Saxon Germans came and all our "strategic advantages" were dispelled by the wind.
    Why did this happen? Because when acquiring new lands, it is not "the establishment of friendly relations" that is important, but the superiority of the metropolis and, most importantly, the ability and purposeful desire of the metropolis to supply the pioneers with everything necessary to retain the lands for a long time. This is what we see when conquering Siberia. For several centuries Siberia was purposefully mastered by the Russians, almost everywhere there were clashes and wars with locals and neighbors, but thanks to technical superiority and perseverance, Siberia was successfully mastered and it was managed to keep it.
  12. Papandopulo
    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 12: 47
    +1
    In Alaska, they were also friendly, even with the Tlingit people who had come in large numbers there and instigated by the British. When they "achieved their goal", they began to slaughter the Russians and the Eskimos, and the Cossacks gently broke in them, this tribe was forced to move back to Canada for the most part, where it, as an unjustified hope, quickly died out on the reservations, and named another tribe by this name, which is now participates in theatrical performances about the struggle for the independence of Alaska! Now National Geographic with BBC is only 15 years old and is busy with stories about what Russian "barbarians" Indians offended! Probably even in cannibals they took scalps from them.
    And this is really true in a country where both "atomic" B-29s are exhibited in museums.
  13. AK64
    AK64 30 June 2016 16: 02
    0
    By the way, the fort in the photo is somewhat surprising: it is rather an American fort rather than a Russian one. Russians usually have a wall made of log cabins (sometimes in Siberia, triangular, to save effort) with bridges between log cabins cut into log cabins
  14. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 30 June 2016 17: 26
    0
    Quote: AK64
    Way f

    Don't you seriously think that the presented fort has actually been preserved from those years? Most likely this is a reconstruction "based on", or, in general, they were guided by something similar - but it was American carpenters, not Siberian ones, who were cutting it.
    1. AK64
      AK64 30 June 2016 17: 44
      0
      It is clear that the reconstruction. I mean that this is a reconstruction of the American fort, and not Russian.
  15. Cat
    Cat 30 June 2016 21: 29
    +1
    Thanks to the author and commentators for the topic and notes. Got a real pleasure.