Comments on: Russian Orthodox history at risk in California?

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:51:45 +0000

Isa, good point. Baranov was typical of the westernized Russian elites that were well on their way to abandoning traditional Orthodox piety. It was the Church and its monastics which kept the traditional Orthodox evangelistic program alive and well. It’s so ironic, the secular elites that ran the Russian-American company did not want the eight Valaam monks preaching and baptizing the natives, mainly because it would elevate the natives to co-equal status wih the Europeans as well as make them subjects of the Russian Empire.

This of course gives the lie to those who think that the Russian church “abandoned” the Alaska natives to their own devices. There is simply no way that the massive conversion project that resulted could have progressed without the due diligence of concerned Russian Orthodox clergy (no matter how miniscule their numbers in relation to the natives).

By: Isa Almisry

Isa Almisry — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:49:22 +0000

One proof of that is Alaska: it was mainly converted AFTER the Russian administration left. The Tlingit resisted conversion, and did so en masse during the Jacksonian military administration. At one point the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” sent a petition to the US President, reminding him that they knew “that the Czar did not sell us as slaves, but left us rights which the US Congress made firm.”

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:27:10 +0000

Isa, very good insights. It has fascinated me as well how the Russians (despite their heavy-handedness at times) have respected the native Amerindian cultures and have never tried to “Russify” them. Their evangelism allowed for native expressions to grow and become Orthodox on their own terms, which is really the Orthodox way (in the ideal).

By: Isa Almisry

Isa Almisry — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:08:57 +0000

This would be a shame on many levels.

I visited, actually went on pilgrimige there, last year. I remember upbraiding the local tourist bureau because there was absolutely NO advertisement or signs announcing the existence of the place. If I didn’t know that I was looking for it, I would not have found it.

This is a travesty on many levels: it has a fine museum, with very professional displays that can compete with the ones here in Chicago’s Field Museum, which has one of the finest, if not the finest, collections on Amerindian Cultures.

The reconstruction is very authentic, and in the case of two of the buildings not reconstruction but renovation.

Another thing that is interesting is the contrast at Fort Ross with the Russians and the Amerindians. Secular authorities, scholars, etc. contrast the destruction of native culture among the English and Spanish, and its preservation among the Russians.

I wonder if the Russian government can be induced to show some interest, along with the State of Alaska (Fort Ross was intended to be the Southern outpost of Alaska), not to mention the Orthodox of all North America but particularly in the lower 48.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:22:24 +0000

Hopefully, American Orthodox can come together to reclaim this important piece of ouf history.