Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘history’

Sea otter, 1806

Sea otter, an image published (in black and white) in The World: or, the Present State of the Universe, being A General and Complete collection of Modern Voyages and Travels. Selected, arranged, and digested, from the narratives of the latest and most authentic travellers and navigators. By Cavenshish Pelham, Esq. This book was published in London in 1806. This colored image is from Ancestry Images.com.

I put together the following for a Sitka Maritime Heritage Society boat cruise, as background for a presentation by Jerry Deppa about how sea otters came to be reintroduced to Sitka Sound.

First, picture the northwest of North America 300 years ago: populated by many distinct indigenous nations, with thousands of years of complex histories, wars, trade, and customs. North American indigenous societies, and technology, were far from static, and far from passive, far from the stereotype of simple, timeless people living on natural bounty. In fact, Native people actively managed important resources, and social systems and language are as complex and “advanced” as those of Europe.

Sea otter were valued by North Americans for their rich fur, and were eaten.i Sea otter are a kind of weasel, but spend their lives at sea. Unlike other marine mammals, sea otter do not have a layer of fat under their skin, but are insulated from the cold ocean water with dense, soft fur, with 6,000 hairs per square inch. This makes it the most luxurious fur in the world.

A robust trade network on the NW Coast flourished in localized specialty products such as hooligan oil, baskets, red cedar canoes, and seal oil.ii Regional trade came together at a huge annual market at The Dalles on the Columbia River.iii

This was also the European Age of Exploration, and, of global trade: In 1778 Captain Cook, on his last voyage, spent time working on his ships in Nootka Sound. While there, they traded for some sea otter garments. In 1779, they made a huge profit on them in trade at Canton, China.iv

Cook’s journals were published in the mid 1780s, and the rush was on.v

Soon American ships dominated, nearly all out of Boston.vi Trade moved from Nootka Sound (on Vancouver Island) as sea otter were hunted out, and, as traders tried to get closer to the sources of the skins (to bypass Native middlemen): Sitka was the hot spot in the 1790s.vii While sometimes trade was accompanied by violence, it was mostly civil as shrewd Yankees met their match in shrewd and experienced indigenous traders. Elaborate trading protocol developed.viii

British traders were handicapped by Hudson’s Bay Company monopoly on NW Coast, and East India Company monopoly in China, which meant they had to pay to play. And wars raged on the European Continent during the peak years of the trade, which further handicapped European traders.ix

Americans alone sold an average of 14,000 sea otter pelts/year at Canton 1805-1812. The peak years for profits were 1790-1810.x

Over the next several years, increasing competition and fewer furs made the trade less profitable. The trade moved to land furs and other products, and ventures like supplying the Russians at Sitka. In the late 1830s the Hudson’s Bay Company, trading out of forts on land, completely took over the fur trade on the Northwest Coast, as well as supplying the Russians.xi

Impact on United States: After the Revolutionary War, the sea otter skin trade was a fortunate replacement for lost British markets. Sea otter furs were the only thing Americans had in any quantity that the Chinese wanted.xii They traded for porcelain, silks, tea, and profited in each of the three transactions: trading furs for guns and other goods with the Natives; trading Chinese luxury goods for sea otter furs; and then their biggest mark up was selling Chinese goods on the domestic market.xiii Profits from the North West Trade produced some of the capital for American industrialization.xiv

Every one of these hundreds of thousands of furs was purchased from Northwest Coast Natives – which brought great wealth into the Northwest Coast indigenous economy. There was an explosion of art. The Native middlemen profited the most, as guns, ammunition, beads, fabric, iron etc. were traded far into the interior for more furs, which in turn were traded for further profit with Americans and Europeans.xv

But – international trade also brought devastating smallpox epidemics: in the early 1770s an epidemic was brought by a Spanish explorer; further outbreaks in 1795 and 1811, and a devastating epidemic in1836-37, plus other diseases such as syphilis and tuberculosis, killed more than half the people originally here.xvi It is hard to overestimate the impact the decimation of the Native population must have had. What could it have been like, to see a third, or a half, of your community sicken and die over a short period of time? It must have been traumatic, to lose children, parents, grandparents.

What was the impact on the North West Coast Natives? Wealth while it lasted, but, then the sea otter were gone; after that the trade was in land furs, which were not as profitable; by the 1830s changing fashions and social disruption in Europe meant there was a smaller market and lower prices; due to hunting pressure, there were fewer fur-bearing mammals of any sort, and the Hudson’s Bay Company was relentless in eliminating the middle man, meaning less of the profit for indigenous entrepreneurs.

The Russians:

The Siberian fur trade of 1600s and 1700s brought Russian fur traders sweeping across Siberia, hunting and trapping animals but mainly demanding “tribute” or taxes to the Czar in the form of furs.

In 1742 the survivors of Vitus Bering’s last voyage returned to Siberia with sea otter furs. Like Cook’s men 30 years later, they discovered how valuable sea otter furs were in the Chinese market. Between 1743 and 1800 there were a hundred expeditions for furs to Alaska and the North Pacific islands. Over time, companies had to be bigger and take longer to go farther, as sea otter were exterminated closer to the Siberian mainland.xvii

Native people were much better at hunting than the Russians – so, the Russians forced Natives to hunt for them.

There were deadly confrontations,xviii and Russians forced Native labor not just for hunting, but providing food and equipment for the hunting expeditions and sustaining the Russians themselves. Devastating disease epidemics; taking people away from providing for their own needs; and violence caused the population of the Aleutians – people who had developed rich and unique technology and culture over thousands of years – to drop to only 20% of what it had been.

Merchant Grigorii Shelikov built the first permanent Russian fort, on Kodiak, in 1784. There were only a few companies left by that point. These companies consolidated in 1799 as the Russian American Company, with a charter by the Czar to govern Alaska.xix

So, by the 1790s, the Russians were also moving into southeastern Alaska, as they ran out of sea otters farther west. They brought fleets of hundreds of Native hunters in baidarkas (kayaks).xx

Alexander Baranov – who had been Shelikov’s manager, then became the first Governor of the Russian American colonies – wrote that Southeastern Alaskan sea otters belonged to Russia, and that the Americans and British, trading with the Tlingit, had no rights to them.xxi

In 1794 the Russian ship Phoenix (built at Seward) with 170 baidarkas took 2000 otter just at Yakutat.xxii The first hunting expedition to the Sitka area was in 1796.xxiii

Over the years 1797-1821 Russians took average of 3000 sea otter a year;xxiv in those first years, most of those were from southeastern Alaska.

Alexander Baranov established a fort at Old Sitka, about seven miles north of present-day Sitka, in 1799.xxv It seems remarkable that they could establish a base for hunting sea otter, which would have diverted the profits from those skins from the Tlingit, to the Russians.

In 1799, 115 Native hunters working for the Russians died from paralytic shellfish poisoning from mussels at what is now called Poison Cove. In spite of this tragedy, they took 1800 furs that season.xxvi

In 1800 they took 2000 sea otter, and in1801 4000 sea otter, just in the Sitka area. Sitka’a harbor also had various British and American ships trading from the Tlingit at this time.xxvii

The Russian-allied hunters taking thousands of sea otters from the Tlingit waters, in addition to insults and abuses, led a multi-clan alliance of Tlingit to destroy the fort in 1802.xxviii They salvaged the stored sea otter pelts, and went to Captain Barber on the ship Unicorn, according to him to demand surrender of the survivors he had on board. Barber instead forced the Tlingit to turn over the pelts and the captives they held, which he then took to Kodiak and gave back to Baranov in exchange for 10,000 rubles (in furs) for his trouble.xxix

Sitka, or New Archangel, was established on the site of Noow Tlein, now downtown Sitka, by the Russians in 1804, following the Battle of Sitka at Kaasdaa Héen, or Indian River. This battle might have gone the other way, but, the Russians had the naval ship Neva, and the defending Kiksadi lost canoe of gunpowder and several young leaders in an accidental explosion. Baranov had also retaliated against other clans who had participated in the 1802 sacking of the Old Sitka fort, which may have discouraged potential reinforcements.xxx

The Kiksadi clan and their relations made a strategic retreat, but, this was the end of Russian hunting in southeastern Alaska, although Baranov reported 500 furs from 1804-early 1805.

At the newly-established fort of New Archangel, the Russians and the 700 Native people working for them suffered scurvy, and near starvation the first winter; in 1805 the Russians bought the American ship Juno, which they sent to California the winter of 1805-06 for supplies from the Spanish.

Fast forward: sea otter were largely hunted out by 1820, and by the early 1830s Russians saw they were driving sea otter and fur seal (they had discovered the Pribilof Islands,where the animals breed) to extinction, so began conservation in areas they controlled, in western Alaska. Through moratoriums on certain areas, they built sea otter back up.xxxii

In southeastern Alaska, the Russians purchased sea otter furs from the Tlingit. The average number of sea otter pelts sold by the Russian American Company 1842-1860 – hunted by Company employees in Western Alaska, and purchased from Tlingit in southeastern Alaska – was 1,347/year.xxxiii

Of that total, the Tlingit sold an average of 150 sea otter a year to Russians, but after 1851, Tlingit took them all to the newly-established port of Victoria to trade, because they got better goods than the Russians had.xxxiv

The Russian American Company was dependent on fur trade, which, after the 1810s, was mainly land furs. After the sea otter hunted down, the fur trade was not that great. The Russian American Company tried to diversify, but couldn’t. Expenses grew as the Company supported retirees and widows, and it was always expensive to supply the colonies. Sad state of the fur trade part of why they sold out.xxxv

In 1867 Russians sold their claims to the Americans. Fur hunting and trading was wide open. Fur seals were very nearly wiped out in the international frenzy for profit.

Summary:

From 1780s through the 1870s the fur trade was pretty much the only economic activity in Southeastern Alaska. After the 1830s, the fur trade was not that great, with declining takes, changing fashions,xxxvi then the American and European recession of the 1870s.

This is what the incoming Americans saw – the impact of repeated, severe disease epidemics over the previous century and a half, and poverty due to the poor state of the fur trade over the decades before and immediately after the Transfer. The Tlingit economy was probably made worse by the pullout of the Russians, who seem to have bought more food and other items from the Tlingit than the Americans did.

The impoverished state of the Tlingit in 1867 fed into stereotypes and prejudice against Natives, and justification for denying citizenship, and for excluding Natives from civil and economic opportunities.

 

In addition to the sources in the end notes, other useful books include Ilya Vinkovetsky, Russian America: An Overseas Colony of a Continental Empire, 1804-1867, Oxford University Press, 2011,

and Kenneth N. Owens with Alexander Yu. Petrov, Empire Maker: Aleksandr Baranov and Russian Colonial Expansion into Alaska and Northern California, University of Washington, 2016.

iJames Gibson, Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Trade of the Northwest Coast, 1785-1841 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992) 7-8

iiGibson, 8-11

iiiGibson, 10

ivGibson, 22

vGibson, 23

viGibson, 38

viiGibson, 135

viiiGibson, 110-126

ixGibson, 24

xGibson, 315

xiGibson, 79-80

xiiGibson, 36-38

xiiiGibson, 58

xivGibson, 292

xvGibson, 270

xviGibson, 272-277

xviiGibson, 12-13

xviii Petr Aleksandrovich Tikhmenev, A History of the Russian American Company, trans. and ed. Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1978), 10

xixTikhmenev, 14

xxGibson, 13

xxi Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, Richard Dauenhauer, and Lydia T. Black, editors. Anóoshi Lingít Aaní Ká / Russians in Tlingit America: The Battles of Sitka, 1802 and 1804. Seattle and London: University of Alaska Press and Juneau, Alaska: Sealaska Heritage Institute, 2008, 140

xxiiTikhmenev, 35

xxiiiTikhmenev, 45

xxivTikhmenev, 153

xxvTikhmenev, 61

xxviIbid.

xxviiGibson, 14

xxviiiTikhmenev, 65

xxixIbid.

xxxDauenhauer, 219-325 (Baranov burning villages, 249)

xxxiiTikhmenev, 206-206, 235

xxxiiiGolovin, Captain-Lieutenant Pavel Nikolaevich, The End of Russian America: Captain P. N. Golovin’s Last Report, 1862. Basil Dmytrishyn and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, translators and introduction (Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society, 1979), 164

xxxivGolovin, 154

xxxvTikhmenev, 215

xxxviGibson, xi

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Sheldon Jackson yearbook page
“Deputation” from the 1967 Alayeksa, the yearbook of the last graduating class of Sheldon Jackson High School

Recently a friend wrote that Sheldon Jackson School “was first and foremost a boarding school for Native students, and if one looks at the legacy of the boarding school era throughout Indian Country one begins to understand just how devastating an impact that period had on Native communities and their future development. . . . SJ is in many ways the central nerve of this forced assimilation in Alaska . . . “

The school’s legacy is complex, and some students had bad experiences, others had positive ones, and many had both.  Just as everyone’s experience was different, boarding schools were different. Sheldon Jackson was a private school and students had to pay to go there. Many were legacy students, whose parents and even grandparents went there. For students alive today, they were not forced to go to school, but they and their parents were forced to make a terrible choice – if they wanted education, they had to leave their homes, family, culture, community.

There was deep damage done to generations, not only losing their culture, but in being told that it was not worth anything, losing their sense of themselves, their culture, parents, language, as worthy. There are also damaging consequences from taking away a person’s sense of power, through forced submission to rules and customs of an alien culture. Boarding schools were engaged in a culture-replacement project, based on the assumption that Native culture and language were not only inferior to Euro-American culture, but that they had to be stamped out in order for Native people to progress.

The really important and difficult thing about mission education is that it was never simply  missionaries forcing Natives to do something. Mission and government schools varied, through time, and for different students. On one end were children taken from their parents against their will. The vast majority, perhaps all Sheldon Jackson students in the 20th century were there because their parents wanted them to be there.

Native people long ago, just as now, made their own decisions, and had their own reasons for adopting the dominant education and culture, or for making the sacrifice to send a child to Sheldon Jackson. This is hard to understand now, how Native people could have written and spoken about the need to “give up the old ways,” how Native people could have exhibited pride in assimilation. Many parents deliberately did not teach their children their language, in the belief that it would hold them back.  This is what we have to try to understand – the atmosphere 50 years ago or more, when abandoning one’s language seemed like a good choice; when there were few or no other options. It was not so long ago that being Native was understood as a handicap. There was no sense of how important language is to culture, and how important language and culture, and pride in one’s heritage, are to a healthy sense of who we are. Racial bias was pervasive. The assault on traditional culture was coming from all sides, from the government and popular culture, not only in education.

When we paint all missions as sites of forced assimilation we ignore the complexities of the past. Sheldon Jackson was successful only because Native parents supported it. In the earliest years, the mission tried to keep children by force, but in the 20th century it was unnecessary. We paint missionaries as villains, we drive a stake through their hearts, and think we are good. Demonizing missionaries only deflects attention from the continuity of past attitudes into the present. Racial bias, stereotypes of Native Americans, and patronizing attitudes did not vanish with the missionaries, even if we’d like to pretend they did.

A few weeks ago I was telling another friend about an interview with an older Native man, who still believes that not teaching the children the language was a good decision. My friend gazed at me with sorrow – the kind of look I get from those who regret I don’t accept Jesus as my Savior – as if by listening, and acknowledging this man’s viewpoint, arrived at in the course of his traumatic early-life experience, I was in agreement with his position.

The next day, I talked to a graduate of Sheldon Jackson High School in the 1960s, a woman who I knew as politically active, and I was expecting to hear about racist attitudes and harsh discipline. Instead, she told how she attended Sitka High School for a year, before going to Sheldon Jackson, and how there was a “world of difference” – that SJ was “like family.” How at Sitka High, she was a nobody, a “little Native girl.” Some other Native kids identified and were treated as white, and were popular at Sitka High; but for her, there was “so much racism.” At Sheldon Jackson, “life changed.” She was accepted as a Native student. Through her years at Sheldon Jackson, and through church, she has connections, everywhere in Alaska, even where she has no relatives, if there are SJ people from the years she was there.

This was another surprise, but an unintended consequence of segregated education at Sheldon Jackson was – in spite of the suppression of Native language and culture – to foster the identity of this generation as Alaska Natives, across tribal and geographic lines.

Later that same evening, I saw a film, Strangers No More, about a school for the children of immigrant workers in Tel Aviv, Israel. The film followed a handful of children, refugees who had seen family members murdered in front of them, who had grown up in refugee camps, and had fled to Israel. Again and again, tears came to my eyes, as the the women in the film, a teacher and the principal, took care to help the children through the traumas they had been through, and to help them to succeed in the school. The compassion and caring of these teachers was extraordinary, as was the deep gratitude and love of the students for the teachers, and the affectionate relationships among the children. The children’s faces glowed with love and pride. It was clear that without this school these children would have much diminished chances of success, perhaps even survival. One teacher says, it’s in the Bible – Jews have a duty to help those less fortunate.

Here is a mission school. Were the Tel Aviv teachers sensitive to the cultures of the children? They taught in Hebrew. It’s like SJ in another way: the power relationship is unavoidably uneven. The helper has more power than the student – or even the adults, the parents of the children. They helped the father of one young boy – tired, fearful, weary – by helping him through the process of extending his work visa. This is a great good – but it also reinforces the power relationship, and his helplessness.What does that do to how the son sees himself and his father? Any time the more fortunate help the less, we may be taking away their sense of control, of identity, and reinforcing the very power structure that has led to their problems – the war and evil that’s driven the kids from their homes. When the dominant culture trains kids from others’, we are implicitly putting down their culture. And, making the children outsiders in their own culture.

There are important differences, of course. The teachers at this school could not have taught in the children’s languages if they wanted to, so they had no choice but to teach in Hebrew. Unlike Sheldon Jackson, they did not punish children for speaking their own languages, and were not teaching in the children’s ancestral home place.

But in important respects, this school is much the same. We don’t know whether it works for all children, but for some, just at Sheldon Jackson, it is life changing. The children leave better off than they were, with a stronger sense of themselves, friends with children from all over the world.

We still believe in the power of education, and in helping others. Public education in America came out of this basically patronizing, missionary impulse to help less fortunate children, and still has this sense behind it, so we need to learn about these more explicitly mission schools. As we go forward we have to consider what it is that is, and  was,  beneficial in these schools, and whether we can minimize the bad. Or, can we imagine an entirely new model, that integrates, and is guided by, students’ culture and language?

How much of the good is due to the individual teachers – like the best teachers at Sheldon Jackson, they genuinely respect the children and their abilities and expect the best from them. These teachers are highly educated themselves, and respect themselves. You can see that a poor teacher, or one with control issues, would be disastrous in this situation.

How much of the success is the fact that for these children, there are no alternatives? So there is no way but up. There must always be this complexity. Perhaps the best thing is for us to be aware of it, and to try to be humble, and motivated by what’s best for the child – and try to be open to what that might be.

A school can be all downside, discipline without love, politics or doctrine trumping making the child feel safe, appreciated and able to grow, reinforcing a child’s sense that he is a failure. It depends on the individuals, and the culture of the institution. When it works, it is because of a genuine human relationship, and the exact situation, the setting, the times; and it’s a subtle, individual thing. You can imagine one kid being ignored, not fitting in, and experiencing humiliation; while next to him, a kid whose temperament fits better with the teachers and the culture of the institution thrives.

No doubt this school in Tel Aviv is not perfect, but it’s just as unlikely that Sheldon Jackson was wholly to be condemned. All offer important lessons.

Read Full Post »