Note: The following is based completely on statements and works by Native Americans. Most of it is cut and pasted from the words of Russell Means, Jack D. Forbes, Devon A. Mihesuah, James Collins and Iroquois leaders. John Mohawk was also an important source.
George Washington (1700s), also known as Hanadaguyus, had become famous as an Indian killer during the French and Indian War. He had risen quickly through the militia ranks by butchering Indian communities and burning their homes. The father of his country massacred men, women and children. It had taken dozens of such My Lai massacres for George Washington to become a hero.
When his army entered the country of the Six Nations (Iroquois), the Seneca called him Hanadaguyus (“Town Destroyer”). Even years later when that name was heard, women looked behind them and turned pale, and children clinged close to the necks of their mothers.
When his army came to the Onondaga Town they put to death all the women and children, excepting some of the young women that they carried away for the use of their soldiers, and were put to death in a more shameful and scandalous manner. Yet these rebels call themselves Christians.
When Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day 1776, an Indian woman was in the bow of his boat to guide him across – but not all the way, apparently, according the famous painting by Thomas Sully.
Washington owned hundreds of black slaves. Black labourers were captured, shipped, sold and resold in order to provide cheap labour for the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons of North America.
George Washington believed Indians to be inferior to Europeans. He bought and sold Indian lands without tribes’ permission, fought and killed Indians without mercy.
The revolt against Britain, while cast in a language of universal rights and freedoms, was also a blow against royal protection of Indian lands; and the revolt was led by those, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Patrick Henry, with considerable financial stake in the acquisition of such lands. British American colonials had been outraged by the Proclamation of 1763, properly seeing this as a royal restriction on their right to settle on, seize, purchase, or otherwise acquire west-lying Indian lands, and in 1776 they rebelled against the crown.
After the rebellion Washington became president and waged war on Indians in the land now called Ohio. After a disastrous loss of an army under General St Clair in 1791, Washington sent a new army in 1794 under “Mad Anthony” Wayne. Wayne won the war at the Battle of Fallen Timbers.
The Canandaigua Treaty (1794) that soon followed put the American government, not the states, in charge of Indian affairs. The American government was to uphold their rights, approve all land transactions and deal with Indian nations as independent governments. In practice, though, it pretty much turned a blind eye to what states did, like allowing whites to steal Indian land. It was not till the 1970s that Indian nations had a way to contest land claims.
The Black Hills are hallowed ground of the Sioux, and Rushmore was a sacred mountain before the sculptor Gutzon Borglum desecrated it with four white men’s faces – one of them being George Washington’s.
Sources:
- Russell Means, “Where White Men Fear to Tread” (1995)
- Jack D. Forbes, “Columbus and Other Cannibals” (2008)
- Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians” (2009)
- James Collins, “Understanding Tolowa Histories” (1997)
See also:
And, these Americans did not refer to themselves as “conquistadors” the way the Spanish did.
The only terms we read about in our history books were “colonists,” “settlers,” “pioneers,” etc. and the excuse term of “Manifest Destiny.”
Today, there is a movement to address and repudiate the “Doctrine of Discovery” —
http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html
LikeLike
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/executive-committee/2012-02/statement-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery-and-its-enduring-impact-on-indigenous-peoples
LikeLike
Indeed!
LikeLike
It has been until recently that I noticed how appalling Mouth Rushmore truly is
LikeLike
I am so glad that you wrote this article. Keep on writing the truth about this crook!
LikeLike
S, I can identify somewhat with that sentiment. Abagond, please make a post about what is happening with Mic Macs and the RCMP right now. The government and corporations want oil at any price, are desperate for it – so is our civilization as a whole, I believe. And there is always a massacre, a theft at some point. Another one is being threatened right now. Please cover it!
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing this out Abagond, George Washington and his ilk were some of the most brutal and relentless enemies of people of color in this continent’s history, adhering to the motto “if it’s brown, shoot it down”. I’m just curious, did my comment on the white mythology of George Washington have anything to do with looking into how he mistreated Natives as well as Blacks? By the way, you should do a post on the whole sentiment of the revolution being the first example of white cluelessness, how they get very stirred up claiming to be oppressed, enslaved, and unfairly treated, but don’t or won’t see that they’re doing exactly these things, except far worse to people of color.
LikeLike
George WA shaytaan and all his ilk should be judged by accurate accounts of their deeds.
LikeLike
You know another thought, by glorifying George Washington and his cohorts in the textbooks, and what they represented, in a way I think that’s a huge contributor to racism today, because although there’s a certain amount of acknowledgment towards the uglier side of the United States’ early history, anything negative about them that is even moderately well known is always minimized and de-emphasized, pushed to the side in favor of a narrative of them being saintlike saviors of the people from “tyranny”(ya it’s pretty rough when someone says you can’t just take other peoples land and murder them if they have anything to say about it, or even if they don’t). The cold, harsh reality is that the “founding fathers” were of the ordinary variety of powerful men; driven primarily by self interest, and willing to use whatever deception, manipulation, and violence they feel is necessary to defend and expand these interests. I think a more truthful version of history would do much to disabuse people of the notion that whites built the United States all by themselves, and at the end of the day didn’t do anything all that bad to create it. I think a big part of racism today comes from whites thinking they solely made and own the US, that ultimately they are in the right, and all others(PoC asking for protection from oppression) are just ungrateful guests stealing what is rightfully theirs only.
LikeLike
“Rushmore was a sacred mountain before the sculptor Gutzon Borglum desecrated it with four white men’s faces”
desecrated is damn right.
LikeLike
Abagond said:
This sounds a lot like how the open field system in England and Wales was brought to an end by the aristocracy. George Orwell described it this way:
(Written in 1944: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/orwell-george_on-the-origins-of-property-in-land-1944.html)
LikeLike
Would the British American colonials have been as outraged if their English King had not been leaning on them in this way, because it sounds like it was money they were fighting for rather than freedom.
These were educated men who were doing what they wanted.
Even if they didn’t admire the ways of European aristocracy, and wanted to create a nation based on shared power, it seems that despite the high ideals enshrined in the words they copied and/or concocted afterwards, they knew no other way than to behave in the fashion of the aristocrats in the old countries they were from.
Therefore, they were keenly aware of the accepted injustices of their time.
Perhaps they loved “Country” more than Justice, violence being the vehicle of their love.
The English philosopher John Locke was popularly read at this time.
John Locke believed in the founding of society on aristocratic principles.
John Locke had significant financial investments in slaving Africans.
He advocated that “civil society” was created for the protection of property.
British aristocracy was created out of wars, theft and alliances.
Violence and greed was their way, too of establishing rank and caste.
This is the way of Britain’s warrior class:
In a time when most of the land was given over to agrarian cultivation, there were many small kingdoms, and constant fighting. The soldiers who won were rewarded with parcels of land, the farms/people on them, gold, etc.. Treasures were constantly being re-distributed — among the same extended families — this way. Some grew rich and propertied and gained titles like Earl or Baronet.
George Washington declined the Monarchy of the USA.
Aristocrats though they were, men like George Washington considered themselves oppressed.
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
Hip hip hooray!
LikeLike
Jack D. Forbes’ “Africans and Native Americans, is a mine of information I read 22 years ago and a must read (that I will re-read soon). I was just searching for the authors’ name… thanks Abagond !
Hope everyone is fine here. I haven’t been getting follow ups in a while, don’t know what happened but I was busy anyway, wouldn’t have had time to comment.
Peace to all.
LikeLike
A good illustrative reading in relation to Bulanik’s comments (hey you’re back I see) would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
I was appalled when I read it for the first time last year as an introduction to my Sociological Theory I course. It is a true exhibition of the cruelty of the times, a total voluntary ignorance of the plight of the Africans deported and enslaved in the Americas and thus a real mirror of what white supremacy is.
It is also THE book about the birth of Capitalism.
Only a few other students in class had read it the way I did. One was Mexican. It seems as if the rest had been given social anesthesia to be able to absorb the horrific contents of that book. Or maybe they were afraid to criticize several were Asian students) because it would have sounded “radical”, “impolite” or worst, “socialist” ? (quite strange when you’re studying to be a social scientist).
LikeLike
I’m back in France, Legion (I think you’re talking to me), and things are getting worse than ever here.
It is actually much easier to debate and simply talk about these topics in the US now. French people consider that bringing up “race” or “racism” somehow means *creating* them (the victim is blamed for the problem). Worst of all racist behaviors. Denial. France is the worst at it. The state absolutely doesn’t want to recognize anything. It’s “easier” for us, because colonial history *seemingly* occurred elsewhere. So it doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
@Cornlia, hello!
I’m kind of back; I have had a full plate, and I distract myself here sometimes, more than anything, if time allows in my present schedule, but don’t have interest in any “back and forth” of a negative, p*ssing contest type.
Anyway, I hope you are well.
You are 100% right if you believe that the Scots were a powerful influence on Washington’s (and the Founding Fathers) thinking.
Have I understood you correctly?
The Scots had their on Enlightenment, and along with Locke and the French thinkers, certainly, but perhaps not in the way we imagine. This has become distorted, imo. What the Scots wrestled with was how to reconcile justice with acquisition, or how to treat people properly under capitalism.
Washington and the others weren’t moved by Justice in the same way.
As a result the very moral sense of the Scottish writings was drowned out and lost, essentially.
I believe the humanist core of what the Scots (like Francis Hutcheson) believed has been misunderstood and squashed, just in the way Adam Smith’s original meanings were misunderstood and are now practically silent. From what I recall of his work, Adam Smith did not believe in inequality among peoples; he was no snob, nor was he a slavery advocate and he wasn’t a champion of empire. These days he’s seen as the Godfather of Globalization, but his thinking was structure against protectionism and the hoarding of precious metals in his time…what became known as Classical Economics.
Most of Smith’s writings were destroyed, so I think it suited land thieves and slavers, the Founding Fathers of Washington’s ilk, because they read whatever they wanted into his words, and made the meanings suit them instead, and let themselves be ultimately guided by thinkers like Locke.
I could be wrong of course! LOL.
(Apologies if these last comments sound stilted: I am short of time and doing more self-editing now. I had intended to write a couple of long posts about the British aristocracy, the English and the Scots and their impact on the USA’s founding, but… thought best not to.)
LikeLike
Cornlia, this short film explains my comment above far better:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0)
LikeLike
@Cornlia
Welcome back. I am truly sorry to hear about the state of France. 😦
LikeLike
Legion, actually in the former post I was mentioning my experience in the US.
It’s like Health Care. One side getting better at it (hopefully), the other getting worse (unfortunately). We’ll be meeting somewhere…
LikeLike
@Cornlia: Bonjour.
LikeLike
Loads and loads of gutter Washingtons and Jeffersons to be found among the comment posters on YouTube!
LikeLike
Bonjour Mary, merci. Hope you (and everyone else) are doing fine.
LikeLike
[…] Each chapter of the book includes items that enhance the text. There are maps, photographs, and inset boxes that ask students to engage with the context. One example is “George Washington: Hero? Or Monster? It depends on who you ask!” It gives readers the opportunity to think critically about Washington’s work as a land speculator, how it benefited him personally, and why the Senecas called him “Town Destroyer.” […]
LikeLike