Talk:George Washington#Washington's ambition and reputation

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".{{Cite book |last=Mann |first=Barbara Alice |title=George Washington's War on Native America |date=2005 |publisher=Praeger |isbn=978-0-275-98177-8 |pages=67, 78}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Longreads |date=2018-11-07 |title=George Washington Lived in an Indian World, But His Biographies Have Erased Native People |url=http://longreads.com/2018/11/07/george-washington-lived-in-an-indian-world-but-his-biographies-have-erased-native-people/ |access-date=2025-06-13 |website=Longreads |language=en-US}}

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)

{{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)