5 ms·

George Washington on Native Americans: "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisone

George Washington on Native Americans: "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more." https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-20-02-0661 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-20-02-... This is part of the scorched earth tactics that resulted in not only the death of millions of natives but the almost extinction of the American Bison, an importance source of food and clothing for many tribes.

purple-again 8y ago
All things should judged within their specific context lest history forget Martin Luther King Jr for unthinkable crime of roasting living creatures and feeding them to his young children.
- partycoder 8y ago
  Sun Tzu lived thousands of years before Washington, yet he was more civilized. A true general would not need to conduct a war of attrition with scorched-earth tactics against tribes in the bronze age. Not only Natives had inferior weaponry, they also were not familiar with writing, mapmaking and did not having navigation tools like the compass... limiting any form of military planning. Washington had a wide spectrum of options and he chose to be immoral.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    How would a true general take care of a disperse force that relied on small scale attacks and hit and run tactics?
    - partycoder 8y ago
      He had many options, he wasn't forced to use a scorched-earth tactic. But he did, and because he did we can say that not only he acted in an immoral way, but set a precedent and a bad example for others to follow.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        Yes, I asked what an option was.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Respecting their neutrality at the start of the war, so they do not become an enemy.
- baddox 8y ago
  It’s hard to compare the example of George Washington with the bizarre apparently hypothetical example you provided, but what about the treatment of Native Americans by European immigrants would have been judged differently then than now? I’m confident that a huge portion of people at that time would have made the same judgments as we do now, although I would admittedly need to research it further. For the more common example of slavery of Africans in the United States, the argument that “they can’t be judged by current standards” doesn’t hold water, since many prominent people at that time wrote obviously ludicrous attempts to justify their actions, which means they clearly had the moral intuition that their actions required justification. Not to mention the fact that there were prominent abolitionists at the time. Clearly there was nothing unique about “that time” that made it impossible to decide whether slavery was good or bad. I’m generally very skeptical of the idea that historical people deserve a pass for major moral issues (particularly ones that clearly involve direct violence against humans).
liftbigweights 8y ago
> "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more." There is far worse if you dig further into the history of george washington and his father/grandfather in regards to the native americans. > This is part of the scorched earth tactics that resulted in not only the death of millions of natives but the almost extinction of the American Bison, an importance source of food and clothing for many tribes. "Kill Every Buffalo You Can! Every Buffalo Dead Is an Indian Gone" https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buffalo-killers/482349/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buf... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg It is no secret that the architects of nazi germany admired the genocide of the native americans and modeled themselves after the US. And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" ). "termed a "war of extermination" by Governor Peter Burnett who declared warfare would not cease with Native Americans "until the Indian race becomes extinct"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett
- partycoder 8y ago
  > It is no secret that the architects of nazi germany admired the genocide of the native americans Nazi Germany borrowed tactics from American ethnic cleansing initiatives, but simultaneously they entertained the idea of having Native Americans as allies in the event of an American invasion. The German film "Der Kaiser von Kalifornien" portrayed Native Americans in a positive light.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  > And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" ) You make a good point but you're also wrong. The way the colonies (and later United States) treated the natives was absolutely deplorable and immoral. The US (from the founding fathers until very recent times) is as guilty as you say. HOWEVER... it cannot be denied that the accidental spread of European diseases wiped out over 50% of all natives before the era of colonization even began. Even today if contact is made with isolated peoples great care must be taken and medical services kept on stand-by. A disease ravaging the isolated group is a very, very real possibility. It also means if humanity does every colonize another planet (even in our own solar system), if the flow of people ever stops we may not be able to re-establish it due to disease risk.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Do you have a point with this? The American indians were essentially a warring nation on America's doorstep at this point.
- baddox 8y ago
  In the same way that a bank is a warring nation on the doorstep of a bank robber.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Yup, everything was peaceful and lawful in America before those darn whitemen showed up.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      The native people warred like everyone else. That does not forgive the wide scale genocide the white people committed. They wouldn't have been a "warring nation on America's doorstep" without previous wars against them, so that's hardly a fair justification for more war.
- partycoder 8y ago
  Native Americans are not one nation, but many unique nations. These nations were, in many cases, not united under a single leadership, and their leadership was sometimes matriarchal. Diplomacy with one group would not always extend to other groups, and in some cases diplomacy was conducted with the wrong individual, especially when tribes were matriarchal. These situations made settlers confused and make them wrongly think that diplomacy was futile, as you seem to wrongly suggest.

purple-again 8y ago

All things should judged within their specific context lest history forget Martin Luther King Jr for unthinkable crime of roasting living creatures and feeding them to his young children.

partycoder 8y ago
Sun Tzu lived thousands of years before Washington, yet he was more civilized. A true general would not need to conduct a war of attrition with scorched-earth tactics against tribes in the bronze age. Not only Natives had inferior weaponry, they also were not familiar with writing, mapmaking and did not having navigation tools like the compass... limiting any form of military planning. Washington had a wide spectrum of options and he chose to be immoral.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  How would a true general take care of a disperse force that relied on small scale attacks and hit and run tactics?
  - partycoder 8y ago
    He had many options, he wasn't forced to use a scorched-earth tactic. But he did, and because he did we can say that not only he acted in an immoral way, but set a precedent and a bad example for others to follow.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      Yes, I asked what an option was.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    Respecting their neutrality at the start of the war, so they do not become an enemy.
baddox 8y ago
It’s hard to compare the example of George Washington with the bizarre apparently hypothetical example you provided, but what about the treatment of Native Americans by European immigrants would have been judged differently then than now? I’m confident that a huge portion of people at that time would have made the same judgments as we do now, although I would admittedly need to research it further. For the more common example of slavery of Africans in the United States, the argument that “they can’t be judged by current standards” doesn’t hold water, since many prominent people at that time wrote obviously ludicrous attempts to justify their actions, which means they clearly had the moral intuition that their actions required justification. Not to mention the fact that there were prominent abolitionists at the time. Clearly there was nothing unique about “that time” that made it impossible to decide whether slavery was good or bad. I’m generally very skeptical of the idea that historical people deserve a pass for major moral issues (particularly ones that clearly involve direct violence against humans).

liftbigweights 8y ago

> "The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more." There is far worse if you dig further into the history of george washington and his father/grandfather in regards to the native americans. > This is part of the scorched earth tactics that resulted in not only the death of millions of natives but the almost extinction of the American Bison, an importance source of food and clothing for many tribes. "Kill Every Buffalo You Can! Every Buffalo Dead Is an Indian Gone" https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buffalo-killers/482349/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buf... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg It is no secret that the architects of nazi germany admired the genocide of the native americans and modeled themselves after the US. And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" ). "termed a "war of extermination" by Governor Peter Burnett who declared warfare would not cease with Native Americans "until the Indian race becomes extinct"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett

partycoder 8y ago
> It is no secret that the architects of nazi germany admired the genocide of the native americans Nazi Germany borrowed tactics from American ethnic cleansing initiatives, but simultaneously they entertained the idea of having Native Americans as allies in the event of an American invasion. The German film "Der Kaiser von Kalifornien" portrayed Native Americans in a positive light.
xenadu02 8y ago
> And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" ) You make a good point but you're also wrong. The way the colonies (and later United States) treated the natives was absolutely deplorable and immoral. The US (from the founding fathers until very recent times) is as guilty as you say. HOWEVER... it cannot be denied that the accidental spread of European diseases wiped out over 50% of all natives before the era of colonization even began. Even today if contact is made with isolated peoples great care must be taken and medical services kept on stand-by. A disease ravaging the isolated group is a very, very real possibility. It also means if humanity does every colonize another planet (even in our own solar system), if the flow of people ever stops we may not be able to re-establish it due to disease risk.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Do you have a point with this? The American indians were essentially a warring nation on America's doorstep at this point.

baddox 8y ago
In the same way that a bank is a warring nation on the doorstep of a bank robber.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Yup, everything was peaceful and lawful in America before those darn whitemen showed up.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    The native people warred like everyone else. That does not forgive the wide scale genocide the white people committed. They wouldn't have been a "warring nation on America's doorstep" without previous wars against them, so that's hardly a fair justification for more war.
partycoder 8y ago
Native Americans are not one nation, but many unique nations. These nations were, in many cases, not united under a single leadership, and their leadership was sometimes matriarchal. Diplomacy with one group would not always extend to other groups, and in some cases diplomacy was conducted with the wrong individual, especially when tribes were matriarchal. These situations made settlers confused and make them wrongly think that diplomacy was futile, as you seem to wrongly suggest.