Talk:George Washington

George Washington was a genocide perpetrator

See More

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: For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. 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)

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)