Is it fair to say that the Russification of Siberia was very much the same as the Anglicization and Hispanicization of North and South America?

[TheWD]

Just curious to know what some people here think of this topic. Do you guys think it was very similar or very different?

 

[At Each Kilometer]

Just curious to know what some people here think of this topic. Do you guys think it was very similar or very different?

I would say it is more like Spanish one. Think about Orthodoxy like schismatic twin brother of Catholicism. The government viewed the spread of Orthodoxy as the main component of the national policy of Russifying the non-Russian ppls of the imperial outskirts, equating them by class with the peasant population of the empire.

One of the main ideas ensuring the political loyalty of the imperial subjects of Siberia was the concept of 'merging' foreigners with the Russian population. The term foreigners first received a strict legal definition in 1822, with the introduction of the 'Charter on the management of foreigners'. The charter classified various 'eastern' ppl as aliens, mainly nomadic indigenous peoples of Siberia, whose lifestyle was based on cattle breeding, hunting and fishing.

At the beginning of the XIXth century, Russianness was determined by belonging to the Orthodoxy, and the overwhelming majority of foreigners in accordance with the classification of the mentioned above Charter were not Orthodox. In the XIX - early XX centuries. huge masses of immigrants quite successfully assimilated the Siberian foreigners and in the places of their cohabitation, foreign settlements arose quite similar to Russian ones. The process of Russification of the foreigners was supported and directed by the efforts of the imperial administration and Orthodox missionaries. By the beginning of the XXth century the concept of foreigners, acquired the meaning of national minorities, groups determined primarily by their linguistic identity, but before that to be Russian simply meant to be an Orthodox.

 

[sparky]

Pretty much same same ,
adventurers with hairy chests and low prospects , pushing outside the bound of legallity into the far yonder ,
using some negotiation skill and firepower , they establish themselves as the law of the land
then the government catching up with them and making a legal case for what was a purely piratical exercise by willful individuals

Yermak was the agent of Volga valley merchants
Cortez was anything but a rebel against the Cuba governor
Daniel Boone crossed the Cumberland gap to make some money and see what lay beyond

 

[Volga]

In the beggining it was very like Spanish colonization. Yermak acted almost like Cortez. Obviously less successful))))
Laterr the christianization of locals proceeded rather sluggishly. The government was more interested in taxes.

 

[Larrey]

Always thought there seemed a lot of analogy between the two phenomena of Cossacks, in Sibiria, and the Bandeirentes, in Brazil, and at about the same time.

 

[alexfritz]

comparing the siberian goldrush to the american goldrush(s)
you can tell that one society still had serfdom and the others did not
that might be a diff.

 

[Volga]

comparing the siberian goldrush to the american goldrush(s)
you can tell that one society still had serfdom and the others did not
that might be a diff.

Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861, which is 4 years before abolition of slavery in th US.

 

[Offspring]

This post isn't 100% on topic.

This is a very influential idea:

The frontier thesis or Turner thesis (also American frontierism), is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that American democracy was formed by the American frontier. He stressed the process—the moving frontier line—and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. He also stressed results, especially that American democracy was the primary result, along with egalitarianism, a lack of interest in high culture, and violence. "American democracy was born of no theorist's dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier," said Turner.[1]

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles. There was no landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents and fees. Frontier land was practically free for the taking. Turner first announced his thesis in a paper entitled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", delivered to the American Historical Association in 1893 in Chicago. He won wide acclaim among historians and intellectuals. Turner elaborated on the theme in his advanced history lectures and in a series of essays published over the next 25 years, published along with his initial paper as The Frontier in American History.[2]

Turner's emphasis on the importance of the frontier in shaping American character influenced the interpretation found in thousands of scholarly histories. By the time Turner died in 1932, 60% of the leading history departments in the U.S. were teaching courses in frontier history along Turnerian lines.[3]

Frontier thesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's also Owen Lattimore and his opinions on how the frontier shaped China.

Lattimore's "lifetime intellectual project", notes one recent scholar, was to "develop a 'scientific' model of the way human societies form, evolve, grow, decline, mutate and interact with one another along 'frontiers'."

Lattimore's most influential book, The Inner Asian Frontiers of China (1940), used these theories to explain the history of East Asia not as the history of China and its influence on its neighbors, but as the interaction between two types of civilizations, settled farming and pastoral, each of which had its role in changing the other.[3]

Owen Lattimore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Russian expansion into the East, Siberia and the Caucasus has been compared to American frontierism, in the sense that it greatly influenced Russian imperial identity (Russia viewing itself as a continental and Eurasian power), just like the frontier influenced how America viewed itself.

 

[betgo]

Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861, which is 4 years before abolition of slavery in th US.

About the same percentage of the population of Russia were serfs as the population of the Confederacy were slaves, but a much smaller percentage of the total US population were slaves. Therefore, there were more free poor people to look for gold or whatever.

 

[At Each Kilometer]

comparing the siberian goldrush to the american goldrush(s)
you can tell that one society still had serfdom and the others did not
that might be a diff.

This is common misunderstanding, treating the vast territory of this country like an uniform entity and imperial subjects like clones to each other. Indeed the empire had serfdom till 1861, but her eastern territories were very different from the old and established European governorates. Serfdom was never extended in Siberia, the land was owned by the government and the peasantry developed very differently from the old western imperial territories.

In the beggining it was very like Spanish colonization. Yermak acted almost like Cortez. Obviously less successful))))
Laterr the christianization of locals proceeded rather sluggishly. The government was more interested in taxes.

Speaking about religion to use your own word its sluggish expansion into the east, the reason was the yasak. The fur trade actually fueled the (territorial) expansion to the east during the late tzardom, early empire and only inorodtsy / the foreigners payed the pelt tribute to the govn. This yasak was very much like Muslim jizya, once you convert to Christianity you are no longer obliged to pay yasak, so the traders were reluctant to convert their inorodtsy 'trade partners' to Orthodoxy, this was changed in XIXth century by the government itself, the title of this thread Russification of Siberia.

 

[sparky]

The frontier thesis is very appealing but gloss the fact that Kentucky , Tennessee , Missouri were pro slavery
the Indian territory was open to argument , Kansas too , up to civil strife .
So the border as the fount of freedom might raise some issues .

for Siberia , the initial conquest was done by "Cossacks " in a loose definition ,being cossack in trans Ural was pretty much a self identification .
Quickly being send to Siberia became a penal sentence , certainly by the time of Catherine .
she stopped judicial torture and the death penalty ,replacing it with deportation .
the convicts would be assembled in convoys , left Moscow by the Vladimir gate and walked while by standers prayed for them and gave them some food
once over the Urals their services was given to various bosses in a form which Australians convicts were also submitted
in both countries their descendant were hardly independent spirits with scant respect for authority

P.S. serfdom and slavery are somewhat distinct

 

[Sephiroth]

The scale was different, Siberia being far less populous. And I always thought the native americans had it far worse - enslavement, racism and stuff.

 

[sparky]

native Americans , South and central Americans , Australians Abbos , Nenets , Chuvachs and other Siberians
it was pretty much the same ,
better when the settlements were sparse ,
sometimes there was cooperation , usually to use those wonderful guns to get even with traditional enemies in the next valley
colonization is hard business
people are bastards and hard people are hard bastards

for the Russian deportees the road to Siberia was called "the road of bones"

 

[Maki]

The scale was different, Siberia being far less populous. And I always thought the native americans had it far worse - enslavement, racism and stuff.

Russian expansion was also devastating for the natives.

 

[Sephiroth]

Of course, death is equal. And I am sure it was bad to be conquered. But I would argue it was not as bad as in the Americas. With aystemic racism, it makes it kinda fundamentally different imo.

 

[Volga]

Russian expansion was also devastating for the natives.

Any example?

 

[Offspring]

The frontier thesis is very appealing but gloss the fact that Kentucky , Tennessee , Missouri were pro slavery
the Indian territory was open to argument , Kansas too , up to civil strife .
So the border as the fount of freedom might raise some issues .

People in states with slavery tended to associate slavery with progress, civilization and freedom. Their attitude was usually not: "we have slaves, so we hate freedom". People in states without slavery tended to ignore it when they were talking about how much freedom America has. Their attitude was usually not: "people in other states have slaves, so we hate freedom". So, I don't see what point you're trying to make. They were obviously not talking about freedom for slaves when talking about freedom in the context of the frontier.

As for how popular the frontier-freedom connection was:

Empire of Liberty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Volga]

During the expansion Russians mainly had problems with China which considered Siberia its territory. Cossacks in mass married to local women that automatically made them closer to the natives. You can also read Aksenov for example. His "Dersu Uzala" explains a lot the relationtioships between Russians and locals. The only war between locals and Russians was a war with Chukchas, who actually won.

 

[Offspring]

Russian expansion was also devastating for the natives.

Any example?

Upon arrival in an area occupied by a tribe of natives, the Cossacks entered into peace talks with a proposal to submit to the White Tsar and to pay yasak, but these negotiations did not always lead to successful results. When their entreaties were rejected, the Cossacks chose to respond with force. At the hands of people such as Vasilii Poyarkov in 1645 and Yerofei Khabarov in 1650 some many people, including members of the Daur tribe, were killed by the Cossacks. 8,000 out of a previous population of 20,000 in Kamchatka remained after the first half century of the Russian conquest.[7] The Daurs initially deserted their villages fearing the reported cruelty of the Russians the first time Khabarov came.[8] The second time he came, the Daurs fought back against the Russians, but were slaughtered.[9] In the 17th century, indigenous peoples of the Amur region were attacked by Russians who came to be known as "red-beards".[10]

In the 1640s the Yakuts were subjected to violent expeditions during the Russian advance into the land near the Lena river, and on Kamchatka in the 1690s the Koryak, Kamchadals, and Chukchi were also subjected to this by the Russians according to Western historian Stephen Shenfield.[11] When the Russians did not obtain the demanded amount of yasak from the natives, the governor of Yakutsk, Piotr Golovin, who was a Cossack, used meat hooks to hang the native men. In the Lena basin, 70% of the Yakut population declined within 40 years, native women were ..... and, along with children, were often enslaved in order to force the natives to pay the Yasak.[8][better source needed]

According to John F. Richards:

Smallpox first reached western Siberia in 1630. In the 1650s, it moved east of the Yenisey, where it carried away up to 80 percent of the Tungus and Yakut populations. In the 1690s, smallpox epidemics reduced Yukagir numbers by an estimated 44 percent. The disease moved rapidly from group to group across Siberia. Death rates in epidemics reached 50 percent of the population. The scourge returned at twenty- to thirty-year intervals, with dreadful results among the young.[6]

In Kamchatka, the Russians crushed the Itelmens uprisings against their rule in 1706, 1731, and 1741. The first time, the Itelmen were armed with stone weapons and were badly unprepared and equipped but they used gunpowder weapons the second time. The Russians faced tougher resistance when from 1745–56 they tried to subjugate the gun and bow equipped Koraks until their victory. The Russian Cossacks also faced fierce resistance and were forced to give up when trying unsuccessfully to wipe out the Chukchi through genocide in 1729, 1730–1, and 1744–7.[12] After the Russian defeat in 1729 at Chukchi hands, the Russian commander Major Pavlutskiy was responsible for the Russian war against the Chukchi and the mass slaughters and enslavement of Chukchi women and children in 1730–31, but his cruelty only made the Chukchis fight more fiercely.[13] A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands and erase their culture through war. The command was that the natives be "totally extirpated" with Pavlutskiy leading again in this war from 1744–47 in which he led to the Cossacks "with the help of Almighty God and to the good fortune of Her Imperial Highness", to slaughter the Chukchi men and enslave their women and children as booty. However the Chukchi ended this campaign and forced them to give up by killing Pavlutskiy and decapitating him.[14]

The Russians were also launching wars and slaughters against the Koraks in 1744 and 1753–4. After the Russians tried to force the natives to convert to Christianity, the different native peoples like the Koraks, Chukchis, Itelmens, and Yukagirs all united to drive the Russians out of their land in the 1740s, culminating in the assault on Nizhnekamchatsk fort in 1746.[15] Kamchatka today is European in demographics and culture with only 2.5% of it being native, around 10,000 from a previous number of 150,000, due to the mass slaughters by the Cossacks after its annexation in 1697 of the Itelmen and Koryaks throughout the first decades of Russian rule. The killings by the Russian Cossacks devastated the native peoples of Kamchatka.[16]

In addition to committing genocide the Cossacks also devastated the wildlife by slaughtering massive numbers of animals for fur.[17] 90% of the Kamchadals and half of the Vogules were killed from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries and the rapid genocide of the indigenous population led to entire ethnic groups being entirely wiped out, with around 12 exterminated groups which could be named by Nikolai Iadrintsev as of 1882. Much of the slaughter was brought on by the fur trade.[18]

According to Western historian James Forsyth, Aleut men in the Aleutians were subjects to the Russians for the first 20 years of Russian rule, as they hunted for the Russians while Aleut women and children were held as captives as a means to maintain this relationship.[19]

The oblastniki in the 19th century among the Russians in Siberia acknowledged that the natives were subjected to immense violent exploitation, and claimed that they would rectify the situation with their proposed regionalist policies.[20]

The Russian colonization of Siberia and conquest of its indigenous peoples has been compared to European colonization of the Americas and its natives, with similar negative impacts on the natives and the appropriation of their land.[21] The Slavic Russians outnumber all of the native peoples in Siberia and its cities except in the Republic of Tuva, with the Slavic Russians making up the majority in the Buriat Republic, and Altai Republics, outnumbering the Buriat, and Altai natives. The Buriat make up only 29,51% of their own Republic, and the Altai only one-third; the Chukchi, Evenk, Khanti, Mansi, and Nenets are outnumbered by non-natives by 90% of the population. The natives were targeted by the tsars and Soviet policies to change their way of life, and ethnic Russians were given the natives' reindeer herds and wild game which were confiscated by the tsars and Soviets. The reindeer herds have been mismanaged to the point of extinction.[22]

Russian conquest of Siberia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sephiroth]

Russians outnumbering the locals thats probably hardly an achievement since as I said before, Siberia was a place sparsely populated. And you could also say, at least there are locals.