Talk:George Washington

George Washington was a genocide perpetrator

George Washington was a perpetrator of Native American genocide. Among the Iroquois, his genocidal brutality earned him the nickname Town Destroyer. I previously added the category Category:Native American genocide perpetrators to the article. It was removed by User:Drdpw who deemed it "Not suitable". The category is quite suitable and factual. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In the genocide minimization department, I would like to add that this article makes no mention of genocide. The article does say that "Washington, meanwhile, ordered an expedition against the Iroquois, the Indigenous allies of the British, destroying their villages", however, there is no mention of the "Town Destroyer" nickname nor a link to it. That should change. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The link and a different translation, "devourer of villages", appears in the Colonial military career section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I don't see any discussion of genocide though. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also advocate for John Washington being classified as a Native American genocide perpetrator. He was also called "Town Destroyer", which his article mentions. Although again, the term "genocide" is never used. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The relevant guidance from WP:FRINGE: Template:Tq Do you have some sources of "reasonable reliability and quality" that you have in mind? It would be especially interesting to check what the "serious" biographers such as Flexner, Chernow, etc. have to say about this. Of course if those heavyweights don't like "genocide", we aren't going to get away with it. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett What makes the idea "fringe"? Why should Wikipedia only rely on the opinions of white male writers? Surely, Indigenous perspectives count here. Particularly, Iroquois perspectives. Even the hardly activist National Museum of the United States Army website says: "Some scholars argue it was an attempt to annihilate the Iroquois and describe the expedition as a genocide. Using this term is controversial itself, and it is not commonly used when discussing the expedition. Others have described the expedition as “close to ethnic cleansing” instead." This source and others are enough to at least include a discussion of genocide and ethnic cleansing in this article. The government website for Livingston County, New York says that "many Seneca people today regard the event as a genocide". In Wikipedia's article on Native American genocide in the United States, the Sullivan Expedition is under the ethnic cleansing section. The term "ethnic cleansing" isn't used in this article for George Washington though. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing some homework and citing sources that stand up to scrutiny.

Our current coverage of the Sullivan Expedition in this article is just the last sentence of the "Valley Forge and Monmouth" section. Considering we have an article about that expedition, we should be Wikilinking to that article, and acknowledging the controversial legacy of the expedition. Regardless of what term we end up using for it, I am sure that you could improve on what we have there now.

Regarding "ethnic cleansing", an argument over whether that term should be used, and how, has gone on at Talk:Andrew Jackson for enough years that a lot of it has been archived. Currently, that term is used a couple of times in Andrew Jackson, once in the lead and once in the body, the latter citing six (!) sources to support it.

I notice that we are using that term there with kid gloves, i.e. "... has been described as ...". This is because if the use of a term is controversial, we have to acknowledge the controversy in some way. You would want to handle it similarly here.

The National Museum of the United States Army seems dubious about "genocide" ("... not commonly used"). Even the Livingston County source uses the "kid gloves" method. Not that I am prejudging this, because you could be looking at other sources that are more enthusiastic. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od The main narrative appears to be something like: "In 1675 (by which time John Washington's rank had increased to colonel), he and fellow Virginia planter and militia officer Isaac Allerton and Maryland Major Trueman led retaliation against Maryland natives who had killed three Virginia colonists after a trade dispute. During a planned parley with the disgruntled opposition and their allied American Indian leaders, Maryland militia killed at least five surrendered or parleying Doeg and Susquehannock warriors." ErnestKrause (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not everybody who fought with and killed natives can be considered a perpetrator of genocide. If killing and burning villages of another nation/people is genocide then nearly every war in history was a genocide. LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking about "everybody". I'm specifically asking about George Washington and the Sullivan Expedition, which multiple sources acknowledge is considered in some sense genocidal or ethnic cleansing by some scholars and Indigenous people, which deserves at least some mention in the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Legacy among Native Americans

So the legacy section is a lot of canonising, quite frankly. There's a quick line on him being a slave owner, but the one section his relationship to the Native Americans is that Chernow liked him and Colin G. Calloway didn't. But it's hidden. My addition, removed because it's "already in the article", was:

Washington's legacy with Native Americans is mixed. He was called conotocaurius, meaning Town Destroyer, by the Iroquois, because of his order that their villages would not be "merely overrun but destroyed". In his book The Indian World of George Washington, historian Colin G. Calloway argues that Washington played a central role in the dispossession and destruction of Native American nations. Calloway outlines Washington’s land-hungry ambitions, his military campaigns against Indigenous peoples (especially the Sullivan Expedition), and his policies aimed at erasing Native cultures under the guise of "civilizing" them. The book also criticises how mainstream biographies have largely ignored this legacy.

I think this is worth including as a separate paragraph, but merged with the already existing stuff. As it reads, currently, there's a bunch of separate paragraphs on what a great liberator he was, but little about, well, that, and it's certainly not in focus, which I think whitewashes him. Thoughts?

MattressSmith (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "hidden"? The existing passage includes an extensive quote from Calloway. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. In the current draft, Washington's relationship to the Native Americans is introduced in a paragraph that begins with describing the man as "godlike", and concludes that he felt he had "no choice" but to "extirpate" the indigenous people around him. Other points like his desire for more land aren't mentioned at all.

I want to move the Native American legacy section to its own paragraph to give it breathing space and centre it, without it being removed because that information is in the "rest of the article". I think my addition, if (properly) merged with the existing lines, is valuable. It would be like so:

Washington's legacy with Native Americans is mixed. He was called conotocaurius, meaning Town Destroyer, by the Iroquois, because of his order that their villages would not be "merely overrun but destroyed". In his book The Indian World of George Washington, historian Colin G. Calloway argues that Washington played a central role in the dispossession and destruction of Native American nations, adding that "Washington had a lifelong obsession with getting Indian land, either for himself or for his nation, and initiated policies and campaigns that had devastating effects" for them. Calloway outlines Washington’s land-hungry ambitions, his military campaigns against Indigenous peoples (especially the Sullivan Expedition), and his policies aimed at erasing Native cultures under the guise of "civilizing" them. The book also criticises how mainstream biographies have largely ignored this legacy.

Ideally, I'd like to expand that a little bit, as there's writing by Native Americans on Washington's legacy, but I thought I'd do that later, when I had a solid basis for Wikipedia standards. MattressSmith (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've split out a separate paragraph. Do you have a copy of the Calloway book referenced? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a whole chapter on Washington's land dealings in "The Whiskey Rebellion", by Thomas Slaughter, 1986. "He had an acquisitive genius and was a ruthless exploiter of advantage." This is the major scholarly work on the Whiskey Rebellion, on which most of our article about that event is based. Slaughter is both critical of, and sympathetic to, Washington. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I do as an ebook. Would you like me to dig up the parts I mentioned about the largely ignored part of the legacy? MattressSmith (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The material which you dig up should also be compatible with the Sullivan Expedition article in its section titled "Sullivan campaign controversy". Does anything warrant updating in the linked article within that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

From Colin G Calloway's book?

The way I was going to approach this was to do the reading, cross-check what I could, then update the George Washington article accordingly, without really looking at the Sullivan Expedition article for compatibility. Or am I misunderstanding you? MattressSmith (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The Sullivan Expedition article which you have linked included the "Sullivan campaign controversy" section which presents the question of asserted Washington abuses as facing highly divided opinion among scholars. In that section, those opposed to the reading of Washington abuses seem to be more prominent that those asserting abuses. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you want me to cut the link until I can substantiate the controversy further? Sure, I'll cut it. This seems one of those issues divided along political lines. (Reading Native American scholarship on Washington is reading a very different fellow from David McCullough's, that's for sure.) MattressSmith (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the other way round. Since the GW article here is peer reviewed, then it would be preferable to see your correction/updates/modification on the sibling page for the Sullivan Expedition article first. Until you make your case on that sibling page, it would likely be preferable for you to return the GW article to its previous version. The sibling article corrections should come first if you have RS to support your views. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll need to revert your edits until you make your case on the sibling page first. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

All of them? I thought Calloway's thrust was solid. MattressSmith (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes. I'll do my best on the other page. MattressSmith (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od This is the version currently on the sibling article: "Frank Cogliano, Professor of American History at the University of Edinburgh, called it "polemic rhetoric that renders it wholly inadequate as a history of this important subject," and notes Mann's failure to cite seminal work on the topic, including Colin Calloway's American Indians in the Revolution and Max Mintz's Seeds of Empire." Calloway's book in mentioned as one part of the response to Mann's book as analyzed by Prof. Cogliano. If you have RS to update the Sullivan Expedition article, then you can make your case on that sibling page. Once that's done, then you can bring it up here again; the sibling article needs to be fixed first. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I'll have to sit and do some reading, since I want it to be robust. MattressSmith (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)