Jump to content

Talk:George Bush (pioneer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnosaunders (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 10 September 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Miscegenation And Backwards Projection

"Pennsylvania did not repeal its anti-miscegenation law until 1780, suggesting that" - no source for this opinion is given.

George Washington Bush died in April 1865. How can he be subject to laws based on a word and an idea not coined until 16 months before his death? This is projecting the history of the 20th and 19th century back to previous ages.

The Wiktionary history of the idea of miscenation: "Reportedly coined in an anonymous pamphlet printed in New York City in December 1863, entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro.[1] Replaced previous amalgamation, from metallurgy. See further discussion. " https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miscegenation 83.84.100.133 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer?

Since this man was born in 1779, after 1776, how can he be called a pioneer? One thinks of pioneers as early settlers like those that came on the Mayflower. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No, I think you're confusing that with Pilgrims. Pioneers are just people that travel to and settle a place before a major migration of a like people group. See [1] --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GWB was of African, not Asian, descent.

GWB is of African descent; virtually every secondary source states this. GWB's "father, Matthew Bush, had been an African American born in India."[2] So GWB is not Indian, though there is an Indian connection. It's a little confusing, I know, but the upshot is: he's (part) black, not Indian.

209.91.43.105 has over the past three months taken an obsession to editing away any African-American references to GWB and reinserting Indian references to him, despite virtually EVERY source cited stating that he is, in fact, of black and not Indian descent. And no, that doesn't need to be a capital-B "Black". I'm asking 209.91.43.105 to please cease and desist from his vandalism-style editing and please respect what the secondary sources say rather than constantly tweaking the article to say what he wants to. Let's keep it real, folks. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I would be *thrilled* if anyone could find a source stating that GWB is of Indian descent; I just want to stick to the sources, thanks. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the confusion is in part because Matthew Bush, father of GWB, was probably of African heritage born in India. To be accurate Matthew Bush should be called an African-Indian -- meaning from the Asian subcontinent of India -- just as people in the United States whose heritage is African but birthplace is the U.S. are African-Americans. African-American has become a sloppy term, so that blacks from all over the world sometimes get called African-Americans, a ridiculous title for man born and raised in India -- or likewise Canada or Germany or anywhere but the U.S. -- GeeBee60 (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Speaking of whitewashing history: this is what made it to Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/George_Washington_Bush.jpg

And this is an actual photograph. You decide whether George Washington Bush was 'from India' or any such weaselwords: https://oregonhumanities.org/rll/magazine/skin-summer-2013/dangerous-subjects/ https://ohm-media.s3.amazonaws.com/article_images/2017/dangerous-subjects.jpg

83.84.100.133 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Reverted my reversion about the number of George's sons; turns out that while most sources record only three, there are indeed some sources that mention as many as six. Laodah 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Longstanding Published Confusion between George Bush - Tumwater, WA pioneer, and George Washington - Centralia, WA pioneer

For decades Tumwater, WA pioneer George Bush has been confused with another WA State African American pioneer, George Washington, founder of Centralia, WA. Countless citations repeat this misinformation. Both these pioneers deserve the historical record set straight! The drawing previously posted on this page (and frequently published as only known image of George Bush) has also been disproven as inaccurate for George Bush (and bears a similarity to George Washington of Centralia). I only wish I knew how to correct this article title - this is my first Wikipedia post. Can anybody help? Thanks! - DD

This is correct according to the most recent historical opinion. George Bush is the founder of the first non indigenous American Settlement in Washington state. He did not have middle name of Washington. He is often confused with another Black pioneer, George Washington who founded Centralia, Washington. Also it is correct that there is no known image or photograph of George Bush. Seekfacts (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2020

George Washington Bush → George Bush (pioneer) – Recent scholarship has established that George Bush, early pioneer in what became Washington State, did not have a middle name. It is believed that the use of “Washington” as his middle name may be due to confusion with another early Black pioneer named “George Washington”. But these are not the same people. Although many sources continue to refer to George Washington Bush, reliable sources such as Blackpast.org, now use the correct name George Bush. A second modern source is "George Bush of Tumwater: Founder of the First American Colony on Puget Sound" Columbia Magazine, Winter 1994-95: Vol. 8, No. 4. Original primary sources that I am aware of always refer to "George Bush". These include the special act of the US Congress (HR 707, adopted January 1855) granting ownership of Mr. Bush's land claim ("Be it enacted... that the claim of George Bush...");a legal notice published by Mr. Bush in the Daily Olympian on April 21, 1855 naming his wife Isabella as executor of their estate; and entries in 3 United States census records for 1830, 1850, and 1860 using the name George Bush. In addition, while preparing a proposal for a permanent memorial to George Bush in Washington State, I and my collaborator received direction from multiple scholars of pacific northwest African-American history that the correct name is George Bush. These include Dr. Quintard Taylor of the University of Washington, Dr. Darrel Milner, Portland State University, Jennifer Kilmer, Director of the Washington State Historical Society, and Don Trosper of the Olympia Tumwater Foundation. This proposed change is consistent with Wikipedia’s policy on the naming of articles and disambiguation. Johnosaunders (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Looking over the sources, he seems to be referred to most often as "George Washington Bush" or "George W. Bush". Whether or not Washington was actually his middle name, if this is how he is commonly referred to in reliable sources, then that is what the article title should remain per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm normally all for taking the approach of deferring to common usage in reliable sources, but in the case of corrections for an inaccuracy a change is preferable. If it seems like the newer discovery is in dispute it would be one thing, but from what I can find that is not the case. I always find it awkward when our articles have to basically say "the name we have this page at is incorrect."--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose - you're going to need to actually cite sources and publish those sources first. We can't just take your word for it that the director of the Wahsington State Historical Society agrees with you Red Slash 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment Went to try looking for primary sources that might disprove the RM, but could not really find any. Out of curiosity, decided to go verify that HR document, and it is true it only says "George Bush" (10 Stat 848). It cites a preceding memorial from Washington Territory assembly, passed March 17, 1854, which I found in the Assembly's journal (1854 p.187), which indeed also only says "George Bush" (indeed, he is mentioned three times in the Assembly journal, p.20, p.59, p.187, and always only "George Bush"). Admittedly this could be happenstance around the name chosen in the memorial, and just repeated again.
The most detailed family memoir I could find gives the name as "George Bush" in Blankenship (1914, p.320) (who, perhaps significantly, gives middle names for Bush's kids (e.g. p.252), but none for George himself). Bonney (1923 p.120) reports a memorial erected in 1916 with a plaque of the pioneers inscribed with "George Bush" and the names (& middle names) of his children (as in Blankenship). But the name suddenly transitions to "George Washington Bush" in Fred Lockley (1916, p.111). Lockley attributes it to John Minto, but a peek into Minto's "Reminiscences" Oregon Historical Quarterly (1901, p.142), Minto only says "G.W. Bush" . So this is the earliest I could find. Is Lockley responsible for the new name?
Everything before Lockley (1916) seems pretty relentlessly "George Bush" (e.g. Henry (1867, p.68); Evans (1886, p.90) Evans (1889, p.267); Grant (1891 p.37), Prosser (1903, p.128), Meeker (1905, p.82), The Coast (1908 p.144), Ayer (1916, p.40). It is really only after Lockley (1916), and really only some time after, in the 1930s-40s, that we begin to see "George W. Bush" or "George Washington Bush" in print. (e.g. we still see plain "George Bush" in Hantford (1924 p.62, etc.)
Anyway, not to be taken as evidence of anything for the RM, but just a curiosity, and given that I dug up the links, I might as well share them. I just can't find primary evidence to disprove that it wasn't an error. So I don't have grounds to oppose and defer to the modern scholars.
However, I don't particularly like "(Black pioneer)" as a disambiguator. I would much prefer simply "George Bush (pioneer)". I am tempted to also suggest "George (Washington) Bush" simply because of the longevity of the mistake and retaining recognizability, but that might be too unorthodox for a Wikipedia article title.Walrasiad (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that name should be George Bush. The middle name Washington is thought to be inaccurate and due to confusion with another important Black pioneer who founded Centralia, Washington, George Washington. I would be in favor of George Bush, Black pioneer, as his remarkable story including his journey to the Northwest is so tied to the discrimination he experienced as a man of African descent. Seekfacts (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the only purpose of a disambiguator is to distinguish between people of the same name, not to celebrate someone's achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Bush_(pioneer)&oldid=977756999"