I do not mean extramarital affairs. We cannot forget that hundreds of thousands of natives still inhabited this new country called America. Of course, it was their land in the first place.
One of Washington's primary goals/concerns while in office was the problem of dealing with irritated/furious tribes who felt encroached upon by Americans (who could blame them?). Read this article on Washington and his attitude toward the natives. Do you agree with him? Does this change your view of him?
After reading the article, I say I disagree with him. Washington might have been somewhat neutral on the issue of slavery, but when it came to Native Americans he really had a different mindset. Washington said that they were like dumb wild animals, mindless wolves that had become a neusance to the colonists. Even when Britain or the U.S. government passed a treaty, most of the time it was ignored or taken back. This article proves the reason that they were here first so the land should be theirs. The only time we should have gotten their land is because we bought it from them. I guess finders keepers didn't apply to Washington, England, and even the U.S. I now have a different approach to Washington. While he was one of our best presidents, his view of people changed how Americans think about foreigners. Technicaly we are the foreigners here.(150)
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, they got one thing right right off the bat. Washington and Knox realized they weren't dealing with just other people on the American landscape, they were dealing with a nation. Scratch that, more like 50 different nations. Their way of 'changing' the indians was very peaceful and would be very different if someone else had tried it (i.e. John Adams with his insecure personality). The way they tried to change the nomadic tribes was actually them trying to help their civilization alive and would prosper by giving them tools for agriculture instead of hunter-gathering. It really shows Washington's character by the way he knows that the natives would eventually die out or assimilate, he was still wanting to help them. (123)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I do not really agree with George Washington. In the beginning of it, it seemed like he did not really care about the Native Americans. He just wanted to make peace with them so that he could use them when he needed. Like in the war he needed there help, so it was good to be peaceful with them. They realized that they were not just more people that lived in the United States, but they were a nation and that is why they were dealt with foreign nations and the category of war. Washington was not very fond of them, but I do not think that he did anything horrible to them. He dealt with them pretty well. At the end of the article George Washington promised the survival of the Cherokee as a nation and a people. Even though he did not necessarily like them, he wanted to help them. (156)
ReplyDeleteIn this Article, I disagree with Washington. He may be a good man who was the foundation for our country, but he doesn't seem to care for the Natives. What's the point in being the leader, but not caring for everyone? I don't think it was very good of Washington to treat them that way. I understand why he would want to be at peace with them, but using them is wrong. I am glad though that at least at the end of the article, he promises the survival of the Cherokee. I think that this could have possibly been a cover up for his true feelings toward the Natives. He didn't really like them, but at least he was trying. Washington may have done wrong, but we all make mistakes. This doesn't necessarily change my view of him but it does make me sad that our president would treat the Natives that way. (154)
ReplyDeleteThis does change the way I think about George Washington. In the debate Washington’s side said that he tried to care for others. But when he ordered the destruction of the Natives that aided Britain, he also destroyed many of the villages that were occupied by Natives that had helped America in the war for independence. He did make peace with some of the Natives, but he did not stick to his end of the deal. He also used the Natives more like expendable crewmen. He did not care for them as he cared for his other men. He did treat the Natives badly, but he wasn’t all bad. He did a lot of good things for our country that still live on today. (125)
ReplyDeleteI don't really agree with George Washington, but I don't really strongly disagree. I thought it was funny how any Indian relations were considered foreign relations even though they were living in America and they were here first. And then Indian affairs were changed to Department of War. It kind of makes me mad how we treated them going all the way back to the stuff about Christopher Columbus. Anyway besides that, my view hasn't really changed about Washington. At least he made treaties and such to help make peace. Washington was an excellent president, someone who everyone loved (and that was really hard to fight against in the debate!)
ReplyDelete{110 words}
This most definitely gives me a total different perspective on George Washington. The way people make him look isn’t the complete truth. I understand that people back then didn’t think much of the natives and thought the same way President Washington thought but I think that George could have changed how people treated them or at least show the people of American that this was technically their land and they were here first and we should treat them with respect. They weren’t just animals who were going extinct sooner or later. They were people. And according to the Constitution ALL men are created equal. Correct me if I am wrong here but I am pretty sure that the natives were human beings not just some animal running around. But instead of doing the right thing, we are paying for it now, 200 years later. It seems to me that America only learns their lesson the hard way. I mean we treat the African Americans horribly, thus the Civil War. We are in a multi-billion dollar debt and now we’re trying to find a way to pay for it. Why can’t we just suck it up and do the right thing? So in this case I strongly disagree with Washington. Don’t get me wrong, he was a great president!! It’s just that he could have done things better, but honestly, all of our presidents could have done something in a better way. (241)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I can say I didn’t agree with the way he treated Natives, but it just goes to show were not all perfect. I think it is good to see some of the negative things about Washington, because we usually think of him as doing no wrong. I do disagree how he treated the Natives as they were just someone in the way. The article also says how he thought of them as pray or beast not humans. I feel like he thought of himself higher than the Natives, because they did stuff different ways than him. If Washington didn’t have to worry about war with the Natives I don’t think he would be as nice as he was to them. The only reason he was nice to them was because he knew he couldn’t afford to start another expensive war. The other side to this was that if he got them on his side they would help him if he ever needed help. (167)
ReplyDeleteOkay so I don’t know if it was just me, but some of this really confused me. I do disagree with George Washington though. I thought it was really awful that he had so many Native American villages destroyed just because they helped Britain. Some of them even helped the Americans! He didn’t even care to try and identify the tribes that were his allies. I also thought it was strange that the Native American policy was FOREIGN policy when some of the villages were within a few miles of the states. And I thought it was weird that this was categorized under the Department of War just because Henry Knox knew a lot of information about the Natives. I thought it was cool that George Washington invited some of the Natives to dinners and parades. After reading this, I honestly don’t think this will change my view of George. I think this small issue isn’t a big deal compared to all the accomplishments in his life. {167}
ReplyDelete~Hey_it's_Mo!:)~
-PS sorry if this didn't make much sense
Washington somewhat knew what he was dealing with. He had about 50 different nations to deal with, not just small tribes. That is one of the only good things he did with the natives. I disagree with Washington, but not completely. The was he destroyed all those villages was awful! Even though they were helping Britain. He also destroyed many that were helping the Americans! They were here first anyway! This has very slightly changed my view on Washington because he still was an amazing man and he CREATED America. Everyone makes bad choices here and there so these mistakes cannot define him. (103)
ReplyDeleteWashington had many questionable actions involving the Native Americans. He was a good president but I do disagree with his actions towards the natives. Even if the natives were sided with the British he did not have to destroy the whole village killing innocent natives. He even destroyed some villages helping the Americans. This slightly changes my opinion of Washington. It does not change that he was greatest president in U.S history. He was the man that CREATED America and without him our country would not have SUSTAINED its greatness. So Washington is still one of the awesomeness presidents ever . (101)
ReplyDeleteThis article does not change my opinion of Washington; he is still one of the greatest presidents America has had. This article shows the human side of Washington, how he is human is still sins just like the rest of us. There are some decisions that are defining moments for us and luckily this is not one of those decisions that defined Washington. I still don’t agree with Washington and why he had to destroy all those villages, even though some of the Native Americans were Colonial allies. He thought of the Indians as beasts and not other humans like himself. He also treated the Native Americans as foreign nations even though they’re on the same continent and was here first. (121)
ReplyDeleteThis article was a bit surprising, to be honest. I already knew that not many people back in the day were particularly fond of the Native Americans. But, I didn’t know how much the really despised them. I understand Washington in one sense, how you obviously wouldn’t really like someone if they were teaming up with you enemy, but that doesn’t give him (or anybody) the right to destroy their homes or even entire villages! Just because he doesn’t really enjoy their existence, shouldn’t mean he should end it! In a way, it’s good that the ruler of the country wanted to protect it, but I don’t think that he realized, some of these things weren’t what needed to be taken care of. He had bigger issues on his freshly presidentially-honored hands, and didn’t need to fret about people that aren’t really doing much harm to him. I think this is a great example of stereotyping in the 1700s. It’s quite obvious that George Washington (and many others) had horrific views of the Natives. They viewed them as “animals” or “wild beasts of the forest.” They really shouldn’t look down on them, considering the Natives probably had their stuff sorted and America was just boarding a tightrope of debt and “unconstitutional” ideas. (212)
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington was not the amazing president that everyone sees him as. He was, as Austin said, human. He was still an amazing person and did a ton of good things but he did do bad things too. He burned down villages and did things bad to the Native Americans. I still see George Washington as an American hero and this story did not change my outlook on George Washington. He was America’s first president and was a National war hero. This is why he won the debate is because he is so awesome. He did more things good than he did badly. (103)
ReplyDeleteThis defiantly changes my view of George Washington. I thought he was an amazing and almost perfect example of a president. This shows us that he was like a racist towards Native Americans. It makes me not like him as much, which could be a good thing. IT seems that Henry Knox was a bad example to him by the way he treated Native Americans. It wasn’t fair that we were taking their lands. That would probably make them angry. We should have been nicer by doing what we said we would do. But this was one of the only things that I know of that he handled poorly. I’m not trying to say he was one of the worst presidents, just that he probably wasn’t the one president that rose above all others. (134)
ReplyDeleteBefore I start discussing whether or not I agree or disagree, I just want to point out that while it is somewhat tragic people’s views of other races were very different from ours today. Meaning that while his treatment of them seems unjust and rude (which it was) the culture of the colonists didn’t all think the same way we do now. I also want to point out that this seems to be written by a Native American so he/she may be biased towards this topic. Anyway, I obviously disagree with Washington on his treatment of the Natives. They were here first so technically this was/is their land, and the only land we deserved to take was the land we bought. This doesn’t really change my view of as Washington because as I said before they didn’t necessarily think the same way as we do now, but that doesn’t make him a bad person; it just makes him misguided.
ReplyDelete[159]
After reading this article, it gave me a different perspective on George Washington. I thought it was horrible that he burned down so many villages, just because they helped Britain. I do not agree with George Washington on how he treated the natives. He just treated them like they were someone in the way and he needed to get rid of them. In the article he called the Indians “Wild Beast of the Forest” and the “Wolf.” I think George Washington pictured himself higher than the Natives. But besides this, I still think that George Washington was a great leader. This barely changes my view f him because everybody makes poor choices and this was one of them, but still like I said earlier he was still a great leader that everybody admired and more people should look up to.:) (141)
ReplyDeleteThis article surprised me immensely. I would have thought George Washington to be someone to look at the "Indians" in a different way. He sort of pushed them aside as if thy weren't a big deal or an issue he needed to face in office until he had to in the end. He thought their cultures would either die out or become part of his own culture. Instead of realizing that the issue would cause great conflict between the people. Yes, he did finally deal with it in the end, but only because he realized he had to, And his "fix on the issue" didn't fix anything. I think Washington should have payed closer attention to this subject earlier on. (120)
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington use his "neutrality" policy again and really didn't worry about the issue.... until everyone else did, then he goes and gives cornplanter 250$ a year to make up for making them feel bad ( may i remind you that this is federal money being created and established by Alexander Hamilton). After you look at this little episode, look at his past. While fighting for the British he enlists the help of local Indians. Later, when he fights AGAINST britin, he betrays them by ransacking their villages and taking prisoner the people in these villages because they stayed true to the promise that they made THROUGH him!!! Whats up with that! This does't change my view of him, only encourages it. I will admit though that before we came upon the subject of George Washington and really studied him, this would have totally shocked me.(146)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I agree with how Washington approached the situation. If I was president I would have wanted to do the same thing. This is because I would want to stay out of war and keeping the debt from rising very much because of a war. The statement that completely changed my view was that Washington saw the Natives as people who were there to occupy the land until Europeans came in to claim it. I think this brings us back to Washington not shaking other peoples’ hand because the role of president was too high for them to even shake hands. (103)
ReplyDelete