Rather than hunting the marine life for themselves, the Russians forced the Aleuts to do the work for them.[2] As word spread of the riches in furs to be had, competition among Russian companies increased and the Aleuts were forced into slavery.[2] Catherine the Great, who became Empress in 1763, proclaimed good will toward the Aleuts and urged her subjects to treat them fairly. On some islands and parts of the Alaska Peninsula, groups of traders had been capable of relatively peaceful coexistence with the local inhabitants. Other groups could not manage the tensions and perpetrated exactions. Hostages were taken, families were split up, and individuals were forced to leave their villages and settle elsewhere. The growing competition between the trading companies, merging into fewer, larger and more powerful corporations, created a conflictual situation that aggravated the relations with the indigenous populations. Over the years, the situation became catastrophic.
As the animal populations declined, the Aleuts, already too dependent on the new barter economy created by the Russian fur trade, were increasingly coerced into taking greater and greater risks in the highly dangerous waters of the North Pacific to hunt for more otters. As the powerful Shelikhov-Golikov Company established itself as a monopoly, skirmishes and violent incidents turned into systematic violence as a tool of colonial exploitation of the indigenous people. When the Aleuts revolted and won some victories, the Russians retaliated, killing many and destroying their boats and hunting gear, leaving them no means of survival. Eighty percent of the Aleut population was destroyed by Old World diseases, against which they had no immunity, during the first two generations ( 1741/1759-1781/1799 AD ) of Russian contact.[3]
Rather than hunting the marine life for themselves, the Russians forced the Aleuts to do the work for them.[2] As word spread of the riches in furs to be had, competition among Russian companies increased and the Aleuts were forced into slavery.[2] Catherine the Great, who became Empress in 1763, proclaimed good will toward the Aleuts and urged her subjects to treat them fairly. On some islands and parts of the Alaska Peninsula, groups of traders had been capable of relatively peaceful coexistence with the local inhabitants. Other groups could not manage the tensions and perpetrated exactions. Hostages were taken, families were split up, and individuals were forced to leave their villages and settle elsewhere. The growing competition between the trading companies, merging into fewer, larger and more powerful corporations, created a conflictual situation that aggravated the relations with the indigenous populations. Over the years, the situation became catastrophic.
As the animal populations declined, the Aleuts, already too dependent on the new barter economy created by the Russian fur trade, were increasingly coerced into taking greater and greater risks in the highly dangerous waters of the North Pacific to hunt for more otters. As the powerful Shelikhov-Golikov Company established itself as a monopoly, skirmishes and violent incidents turned into systematic violence as a tool of colonial exploitation of the indigenous people. When the Aleuts revolted and won some victories, the Russians retaliated, killing many and destroying their boats and hunting gear, leaving them no means of survival. Eighty percent of the Aleut population was destroyed by Old World diseases, against which they had no immunity, during the first two generations ( 1741/1759-1781/1799 AD ) of Russian contact.[3]
Не только американцы отличились.
А что удивительного? Это же совсем дикие места в то время кто там мог оказаться? Авантюристы, а то и просто бандиты.
А почему не выделено болдом то, что 80% померло от заболеваний, а не от пуль? Разница существенная. Одно дело -- с гиканьем гонять туземцев, пока не вымрут, другое -- сами померли от неведомых им болезней.
По поводу убийств... любая колонизация обычно сопровождалась войнами с местным населением. Или тут есть наивные, считающие, что все, что восточнее Урала, так уж рвалось навстречу Российской империи? Да ни фига подобного.
Просто если сравнивать действия европейских авантюристов, кинувшихся в Америку, и русских колонизаторов (зачастую тоже оч-ч-ч-чень авантюристического склада, ну так другие люди на подобное и не шли), то последние действовали куда мягче.
Что-то у нас с вами, Виктория, разговор странный :) Что там с Сибирским ханством-то не слава Богу, поделитесь :)
Я не специалист, будет интересно послушать :)
Victoria писал(а):нет. это к тому, кто кого считал туземцами: московиты сибирских ханов или сибирские ханы московских
М-м-м... зависит от того, чью территорию впоследствии колонизируют. Туземцы -- это те, кто изначально на ней проживает. Так что таки сибирские ханы оказались туземцами, да :)
