Sitka City Assembly’s rushed vote to remove Baranov statue was a mistake
Alexander Baranov, a Russian merchant from the 19th century, now the subject of concern for a small town in Alaska.
As of July 14th, 2020, the Sitka City Assembly has passed a vote of 6–1 to remove the statue of the city’s founder from public view.
The decision was motivated by calls from activists, who earlier this month protested against the monument. They claim Baranov’s statue represents a symbol of colonialism, an abuse of the region’s Indigenous people, and demanded that action be taken immediately.
When asked about the motivation for the protests by local news agencies, local social justice group leader Crystal Dunkan replied, “We were energized by Black Lives Matter, all that was happening down south, and we said, Hey, what can we do to harness that energy? And the statue was such an obvious thing”.
It seems that the call to remove the statue of the town’s founder is directly linked to the nationwide push to remove Confederate statues and other controversial monuments, like Christopher Columbus. But in the case of Alexander Baranov, it doesn’t quite compare with Confederate soldiers fighting for the right to own slaves in the south.
Baranov was born in 1747 in the Russian Empire, into a relatively low social class. He spent most of his life traveling through the far east regions of Siberia where he landed a job with the Shelikhov-Golikov Company, a fur trading company in the region. There he accepted a five-year contract that would send him to Russian-America to manage a group of outposts near the Kodiak region of Alaska.
After finishing his five-year contract, Baranov stayed on as chief manager and was eventually promoted by the crown of Russia to act as the de facto governor of the Russian colonies in America. This meant he had effectively become the first governor of Alaska.
In 1804, he moved the capital of Russian-America from Pavlovskaya (Kodiak) to Novo-Arkhangelsk (Sitka), where it remained the capital until Alaska was purchased by the United States of America in 1867.
That is where the controversy lies. Native American tribes today claim that Baranov and his crews forcefully occupied the land and fought off the native Tlingit tribes with excessive force. However, the truth is that Baranov came to Sitka after receiving permission from the Tlingit chief and even paid a sum of money to secure the land over the British and Spanish.
It was later that members of the Tlingit tribe decided that they didn’t like Baranov’s company hunting local sea otters, which they claimed were sacred, and also feared that they might eventually have to plea loyalty to the Russian crown.
In 1802, Baranov and most of the encampment left Sitka to tend to other business in Kodiak while leaving just 25 Russians and 55 Aleut (another indigenous tribe) to tend the fort. It was during this absence in 1802 that the Tlingit lead a full-on attack on the camp, killing all but 3 Russians and 20 allied natives that managed to flee into the forest.
Two years later in 1804, Baranov returned to Sitka accompanied by a Russian naval ship and some 400 indigenous allies. Instead of a massacre, as suggested by today’s ‘social activists’, Baranov actually gave several opportunities for the Tlingit to surrender and return the fort.
First, Baranov sent emissaries to warn the Tlingit of an upcoming attack. That following day the first land engagement took place, 14 were wounded and 2 were killed on Baranov’s side. Baranov himself was injured and forced to return to the ship for the remainder of the battle. The following days of battle included many breaks during which Baranov’s representatives attempted to negotiate with the Tlingit. Eventually, the Tlingit retreated and returned to their original camps in the north.
Even when dealing with the difficult burden of war, Baranov proved himself to be an honorable man. He never committed such terrible crimes comparable to other infamous colonialists.
During his time as governor of Russian America, Baranov improved upon cruel management techniques that were previously used by colonialists of the time. He also established many schools, churches, and hospitals for Russians and natives.
Baranov received praise from the Russian crown because of how effective his governing abilities were, along with his talent for foreseeing future developments within the region. Thanks to Baranov many who never had access to healthcare and education were saved from the hard-to-tame Alaskan wilderness.
Today, Sitka, Alaska is home to about 10,000 inhabitants as well as a statue dedicated to Alexander Baranov in the town’s center. After the vote, the statue was approved for relocation to a museum to “be put in a more complete context and in a place where a fuller story can be told”.
But what better context for the statue of Sitka’s founder to be placed in than the city center? In what way is this statue of a Russian governor hurting anyone today?
The sudden push to remove the statue from public view has drawn a lot of international attention, with Russian-Americans claiming it to be a huge step backward in the preservation of shared history and Russian cultural heritage.
The Sitka City Assembly was too quick in their decision and didn’t take the time to consider the greater context this statue serves.
Having a statue of Baranov for all to see creates an opportunity to bring more awareness to the Russian history of the region. At a time when Russia — U.S. relations are continuing to deteriorate at an exponential speed, we ought to be building more bridges rather than burning them down.
Just last year, the Ambassador of Russia to the United States visited Sitka and paid his respects to the Baranov statue. Repealing the Assembly’s ruling may serve as a gesture of goodwill to the Russians on behalf of not only the Sitka locals, but also the American people on a cultural level.
Baranov’s endeavors have not all fallen short of efficacy for the advancement of Russia — U.S. relations. Another outpost he founded has recently played an important role in efforts to smooth relations between the two countries.
Fort Ross was Russian-America’s furthest outpost south. The fort is located in Northern California and was originally founded under Baranov’s command in 1812. Today, Fort Ross is a California Historical Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and is also on the National Register of Historic Places.
Furthermore, the Stanford U.S-Russia Forum has succeeded in using the historic Fort Ross landmark as a convolving point to bring Americans and Russians together to learn about the shared history of the two countries and produce research and cooperation in many fields far beyond public diplomacy.
In light of all the facts that have been overlooked, it would be in everyone’s interest if the Assembly reconsidered its decision or at the very least reverted to an earlier proposal of organizing a city-wide vote on this issue in October.
Meanwhile, we cannot continue taking down statues without a process that allows for due diligence, public debate and awareness.
This article was originally published in The Russian American.
