Talk:Russian colonization of North America

Exploration
The page states: "In 1733, Tsar Peter the Great called for another expedition." Peter died in 1725, though.

Hawaii
Technically Hawaii isn't in the Americas. I might that part, but that is an interesting fact. --Kraftlos 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hawaii isn't in North America... I think that's what I meant by that previous comment... --Kraftlos (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Took this off the page.

In 1815, Dr. Schäffer, a Russian entrepreneur, went to Kauai and negotiated a treaty of protection with the island's governor Kaumualii, vassal of King Kamehameha I of Hawaii, but the Russian Tsar refused to ratify the treaty. See also Orthodox Church in Hawaii and Russian Fort Elizabeth.

Might want to move it to a Hawaii-related article. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed Hawaii from this article several times now, but it keeps getting readded. I'm not sure if people are hoping to sidestep the issue in order to expand the article's scope. I'm not opposed to adding Hawaii, but I do believe we should adhere to WP:TITLE when possible. Broader titles, something like Russian colonization of the New World, or the more politically correct Russian colonization of the Western Hemisphere, are more accurate, although these titles are not without their own problems. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Russians in Brazil
I took out all of the following, which is not about colonization but about emigration/immigration; a history of the Russian "colony" in Brazil - a settler colony is not "colonization" as usually meant by titles such as this page has - is very valid and deserves its own article; but it has no relation to Russian America or Fort Ross or the Russian imperial presence; if Russians-in-Brazil were here, then the White Russian migration to the US, Canada, Mexico, etc etc plus Ukrainians, Doukhobors, Volga Mennonites and more recent new settlement of ethnic Russians in the Americas also should be; but that's not t he point of this title, no more than Michael Ignatieff is. This was the section I took out, and it's badly in need of references, cleanup/wikification, and its own title:Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian resettlement to Brazil
The first official Russian immigration to Brazil was after the ill fated revolution of 1905 in Russia, when the Brazilian government granted political asylum to revolutionaries. In 1906, groups dissatisfied with the liturgical renewal promoted by the Russian Orthodox Church, the so-called "staroveri (" SIEF the old religion "), decided to leave the country to maintain their religious beliefs. Groups were formed mostly of farmers from all regions of Russia and ultimately a large number emigrated to Brazil to continue to small farmers. Most settled in the south, but some went to the State of Mato Grosso to cultivate the land in a collective system called "staroveri" . Cities like New Odessa, were founded around this time. A second wave of Russian immigration to Brazil (and this time much more  numerous) started after 1918 and was composed almost entirely of refugees from the Russian Bolshevik revolution.  Around 1920, many "White"Russians  (supporters of the regime czarista), arrived from the Crimea. As the revolution evolved, more and more dissatisfied russians emigrated to Brazil. 1921 saw the arrival of a new type of immigrant, composed mainly of representatives of various professional and social classes of the former Russian monarchy. They were priests, students of military schools, literary scholars, intellectuals and, especially, army officers and soldiers of the "white" czarista regime, defeated in their fight against the bolcheviks. Filling of warships, merchant ships and small vessels of various nationalities they crossed the Black Sea to Istanbul, and from there to Galipoli to the island of Lemnos, Turkey and then to their final and  voyage to Brazil. In 1926, another contingent of Russia immigration to Brazil, used a different route it went through of the Baltic Sea, passing mainly by Estonia and, further north, Finland. At that time, immigration to Brazil had a great incentive by a number of Brazilian states. Although, the immigration policy of the State of São Paulo favored the arrival of peasants, farmers and people accustomed to agricultural work. Unhappy and persecuted in their own country, these new immigrants didn't hesitated to conceal their education and culture to take an opportunity to flee Communist Russia and work for a couple of years in the coffee plantations of Sao Paulo. Many immigrants went further south to the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Parana, they became a majority in cities like Santa Rosa (RS), Jaragua do Sul (SC), Ponta Grossa(PR), Lapa (PR) and Montevidio (GO) wjere Russian still the main language. A third wave of Russians immigrants arrived in Brazil in the late 40's. They were Russians who had emigrated to the neighboring countries (Poland, Bulgaria, China and Romenia) during the Russian revolution and were now faced with an invading Red Army and an even stronger Stalin. For many the only option was to flee again. Altogether Brazil received hundreds of thousands of Russian immigrants who left a strong mark in many cities of the southern and southeastern states and in the culture of Brazil itself. Thanks to the Russian immigrants, one of the most popular dishes in Brazilian cuisine is very Russian indeed, the Stroganoff or Beef Stroganoff

British Columbia
The subsection "British Columbia" currently says: ''The Russians next expanded and explored into present day British Columbia Canada, forming trading outposts and hunting settlements. Later treaties with the British Empire and the U.S. pushed their boundary north.'' The word "next" seems to mean after the RAC was founded in 1799, because that is described just before this bit. I have two questions about this. First, I know the Russians explored what is now British Columbia, and I don't doubt they did some hunting there, but I am unaware of any Russian posts or settlements within the borders of present British Columbia. Anyone have any examples or sources on it? Second, the "later treaties" with Britain and the US established Russian America's southern boundary at parallel 54°40′ north. The 1799 ukase that created the RAC specifically describes its monopoly as extending south to the 55th parallel north. This the treaties with Britain and the US pushed the boundary south, not north, although only by a small amount--a tweak more than a push. Furthermore, the 1799 ukase did not limit the RAC to operating north of 55° but merely made that the limit of its monopoly. The RAC was encouraged to extend itself south of the line, and it did (Fort Ross for example). In short, until the 1824 and 1825 treaties with Britain and the US the RAC did not really have an explicit southern boundary. And the treaties specifically did not apply to pre-existing settlements like Fort Ross. Unless I'm mistaken, the treaties did not push the RAC's boundary north but rather made explicit the boundary between Russian Alaska and the "joint occupied" Oregon Country--a boundary which applied only to future activities. Or am I missing something? Pfly (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Чудно, руска википедија нема овај чланак. --109.93.193.125 (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced source
This unsourced paragraph (dribble), appears to be a weak attempt by the anti-Russian camp.


 * "'In present-day Russian Federation and its predecessor the Soviet Union (USSR) there are periodic mass media stories that Alaska was not sold to the United States in the 1867 Alaska Purchase, but only leased for 99 years (= to 1966), or 150 years (= to 2017)—and will be returned to Russia.[citation needed] However, the Alaska Purchase Treaty is absolutely clear that the agreement was for a complete Russian cession of the territory.'"

Note: the Moscow Times quoted the following:


 * "'The objective of the petition is not to bring Alaska back to Russia,' said Alexander Zhukov, an assistant to the organization's director, in a telephone interview. 'We understand that this is not plausible. Our goal is to show the White House that its petition system is a flawed democratic tool that allows anybody to ask for anything.'"

Because that's just what we need in this world more hatred and intolerance! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rename this "Russian colonization of North America"
There is no history of colonization outside of North America. The title infers there was colonization of both continents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * America is considered a single continent in most of the world, and the name of the territory was 'Russian America.' 104.246.223.62 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2023
Russian colonization of North America → Russian America – I didn't support merging "Russian America" into "Russian colonization of North America", I supported merging "Russian colonization of North America" into "Russian America". Most supporters didn't agree to merging into "Russian colonization of North America". I don't see why this was merged OPPOSITE to what was proposed. Aearthrise (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * where was that discussion?—blindlynx 15:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion was on the Russian America talk page: Talk:Russian America. Aearthrise (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus there for this move....it seems that three peopleincluding the closervoiced an opinion and preferred 'Russian colonization of North America'; one explicitly preferred 'Russian America'; and threeincluding youdidn't voice an opinion—blindlynx 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a move, this was a MERGE proposed on January 10th by User:Beland to merge "Russian colonization of North America" into "Russian America". I wouldn't have supported this merge if I knew we were going to do the OPPOSITE and merge "Russian America" into "Russian colonization of North America", and which was finally executed on October 23rd. Aearthrise (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I get it was a merge, but opinion was at best split about what the title of the resulting article should be. So the merge discussion is not good rational for moving this article—blindlynx 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment and question - In terms of procedure, I tried to make it clear I wasn't proposing either name as the destination, just a merge to one or the other. In terms of merit, the closer mentioned consistency, presumably with other articles? For comparison, all of the articles linked to from Template:Euromericas are "X colonization of the Americas", except for Swedish colonies in the Americas and Italy and the colonization of the Americas. The colonies of New Netherland, New Sweden, New Spain, New England, and Nova Scotia only covered part of those colonial empires. The closest notion to "Russian America" I see is for the British: British colonization of the Americas (full timespan), British America (1585-1783), British North America (1783-1907). Is there a reason you prefer "Russian America"? -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title much better serves the first naming WP:CRITERION of recognizability. —Michael Z. 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Confused
The long paragraph that begins "The first landfall..", about what happened in 1741, is completely unsourced, and frankly, confused and confusing. For clarity, see Bering Expedition Landing Site for the first landing location and date. That is the first place in Alaska / Northwest North America that somebody set foot, other than an Indian obviously. -- Green  C  01:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)