Talk:Whitman massacre

Duplication

This article and the article Walla Walla Massacre deal with the same incident, with slightly different perspectives. Perhaps a merge is in order? WBardwin 08:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr.Whitman chose to go outside he was not snuck up on. 98.97.42.243 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorporation?

Perhaps there should also be an incorporation of the Cayuse War article's information. Schwael 06:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts?

• "The Cayuse and Umatilla involved in the massacre had previously lived at Waiilatpu, the mission founded by the Whitmans."
• "Indians often killed their medicine man, or shaman, if patients died."

Are these facts? Is there a reference for them? They sound fishy to me. Perhaps they lived at the site where the mission was set up, but at the actuall mission?? The second one just sounds made up to me, but I don't know much about their cultures, so it could be fact... Schwael 08:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. As to the latter, [1] supports the assertion: "In their culture a shaman or curer who failed was subject to death". I can't speak for the site, though it claims to be "... the official state directory and fact book about all levels of government in Oregon".

There is also [2] "In May 1837, Umtippe (Splitted Lip, a Waiilatpu Cayuse chief) threatened to kill Dr. Whitman if Umtippe's wife is not cured of her illness, accusing the doctor of poisoning her with his treatment. His younger brother, Yehekiskis, recently had shot the tewat (shaman, medicine man) who had unsuccessfully treated a war chief at Walla Walla. [SOURCE: the diary of Narcissa Whitman provides the proper date for this incident reported in the Letter of John Toupin, 9/24/1848 in Senate Documents, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. 12, Ex. Doc. 40, pp 18-21. Toupin reported that this incident happened in 1838 but Narcissa wrote in her letters for 1837 about this incident and, in April 1838, that Umtippe was again very friendly with the Whitmans after a time of tension.]"

I'll see what else I can find. -- Mwanner 21:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the thorough followup! I find your first reference more helpful than the second, since my question wasn't so much about their reasons for wanting to kill him, but about it being a common tendency towards their own people. I look forward to any answers you can find to my first question. Both assertions seem in somewhat contradictory to the situation as it is explained in the Cayuse War article. I too will look for more. 04:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track of this for a bit... The second source has that "His younger brother, Yehekiskis, recently had shot the tewat (shaman, medicine man) who had unsuccessfully treated a war chief at Walla Walla", which at least suggests that it wasn't all that safe being a shaman.

I'm not too put off by the discrepancy between this and the Cayuse War article, though it would be good to bring them more into agreement. But events like this are often over-determined: there are a number of explanations, any one of which might be sufficient, but all of which may, in fact, be true. Nevertheless, I would like to find at least one thorough, reliable source to work from. So far, I think we've been trying to pull together and reconcile various sources not all of which are altogether sound. Mwanner 22:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation: My history teacher confirms the 2nd fact.

This tendency to hold doctors responsible for the deaths of their patients is amply documented in J.P.Dunn, Jr., Massacres of the mountains: a history of the Indian wars of the far West 1815-1875 (1885, now ISBN 978-0811728133), pp 94-98. Zwart (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiloukaikt

Please look over the quick stub I created for Tiloukaikt. Much of the information is similar to that in this article and the Cayuse War, and I swiped the image as well. Comments and edits always welcome. WBardwin 06:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess this was written before you turned it into the fairly full-blown article it is now. It's very nicely written, though it leaves out some of the elements that have been raised in the other ariticles-- the gift-giving element, and the John Sutter issue.

What's your feeling about the three separate, overlapping articles? Merge, keep separate but strive for consistency? I don't mind them being separate, but it does seem to almost triple the work of keeping them all good and in synch. -- Mwanner 00:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I vacillate between thinking that many smaller articles are intimate and interesting and large, comprehensive articles are impressive. There are many arguments on both sides. In this case, I think that Tiloukaikt and Marcus Whitman, as people, would both deserve a brief biography. However, historical incidents, like the Massacre and the Cayuse War, could be more appropriately combined. Will be glad to work on any arrangement of the articles, however....And, Mwanner, thank you for the writing compliment. WBardwin 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Whitman Agency

The new article Whitman Agency Oregon looks to be duplicate subject of this article, though it has a different way of approaching the topic. I think it should be merged into this article leaving a redirect. —EncMstr (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I think most history courses/books are more likely to list the Whitman massacre as a title. However, merging the Agency would allow greater expansion of the Whitmans' missionary work, education, and health care prior to their deaths. WBardwin (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The agency one should be merged here, as I don't ever recall that as a title for the "massacre". But at some point the Whitman Mission (which might be what the author was going for) as it is usually called should be made an article instead of the current redirect. That would then better cover the background to the attack and role in the Oregon Trail, etc. Though a really large article could cover both the mission and the the Nat' Historic Site, but the current article lacks few details on either the mission or the site. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Hudson's Bay Company

In chapter IV of J.P. Dunn, Jr., Massacres of the mountains: a history of the Indian wars of the far West 1815-1875 (1885, now ISBN 978-0811728133), which describes the Whitman massacre in great detail, the massacre is placed in the context of two territorial conflicts in which the Whitman settlement was a key element. First, the Hudson's Bay Company at the time held sway over the Oregon territory and resisted American pioneers settling there. As detailed in the Whitman article, Whitman had brought a great many American pioneers with him, and also brought certain agricultural techniques to the Cayuses, which the Company felt reduced the land area that could be exploited for fur gathering. Since the Hudson's Bay Company was from British America (Canada), this conflict reduces to an American-British conflict over unclaimed territories. Second, the Whitmans were protestant missionaries and the book describes how Protestant and Catholic (Jesuit) missionary activity in the area was more about claiming the territory for their version of Christianity than about (jointly) converting the Indians. This conflict then transfers European religious wars to the new territories. The article does mention the possible role of the Jesuit missionaries, but is silent on the role of the Hudson's Bay Company. But it is certainly imaginable that the fur traders, too, played into the Indian resentment about Whitman's failure as a doctor among them and thus sparked these events to remove the stick in the mud that the Whitman's mission represented to their territorial aspirations. Dunn reports that these allegations were investigated and circulated widely at the time. I'm just wondering why none of this can be found in the article. Has this theory since been rejected? Zwart (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read much on the role of the HBC, but keep two things in mind. The HBC immediately sent men to the scene of the massacre to try and free the hostages. So, if they really wanted to, you would think they would have looked the other way. Secondly, you need to look at your source in context. It appears you are saying it is from 1885. History, and the interpretation/researching/scholarly aspects to history have some a really long way since then. You also still have at that time the rivalry between Britain and the US, and many of the people writing history would still have events such as the Oregon boundary dispute and the Pig War fresh in their minds. Anti-British sentiment was still around, and the HBC was always a source of resentment for Americans in the Oregon region. So, those things may play a role in the analysis of this source and how accurate their opinions may be. Again, I haven't researched anything on this (the HBC's possible "role" in the massacre), but my general sense of things from related research is that though they were not fond of American settlers, they certainly did not want them wiped off the face of the earth. Also remember, that even the HBC and British were still rather racist back then just as the Americans were, and Americans were generally white and shared a common heritage, and in 1847 the boundary dispute had already been settled. So, it is possible their is truth to the HBC item, but more research would be needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Hudson Bays' factor, Peter Skene Ogden (not necessarily known as the most reasoned man in his actions with native people) was instrumental in the negotiations and the ransom paid for captives. He returned many of the children to their families or guardians. The company did not demand, or receive, a repayment of their expenses in the matter. Sounds like some measure of cooperation between the parties. WBardwin (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning?

When I was in middle school in Washington (up in Oak Harbor, in 1998 or 1999) I was taught in our state studies class that a contributing factor to the violence was that several Indians died due to food poisoning. This was brought on from their theft of crops from the mission garden which had been sprayed with pesticides.

Can't really give you a source other than myself, but it's another part of the story if you'd like to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.128.213 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a source that documents the extremely high death rates among the Indians that Whitman was "treating".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the passage and restored it, and added two additional sources. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul of article

As I usually do, I like to establish what I'm doing when on mass-edit sprees. Given how short Waiilatpu Mission is, I think once I'm done adding content that the two articles should be merged. Anyway here's what I have planned for expansion:

• Background: I don't quite know what else to add... It is essentially a copy & paste of the Addis article.

• Land ownership Basically done, I think I've covered the conflicting views well enough.

• Use of poison Done.

• Outside influences I wish to divide this into two sub-sections. The first would keep the current name and cover three individuals I've been able to read of that influenced the Cayuse and Nez Perce to view the missionaries with hostility: Joe Gray, Tom Hill and Joe Lewis. As there is a reasonable amount of materials on him, I'll create a page for Tom Hill at some point. The second would be "Traditional Medicine Men", being about the Sahaptin (specifically Cayuse) views on Medicine men, relocated into the Background section. I'd wager it best to have the meat of the content to be located on the Cayuse page.

• Disease and other causes This would also be divided into two unrelated sub-sections, the Walla Walla Expedition and Supposed Catholic Conspiracy. The Walla Walla Expedition will soon enough be a separate page, but a brief overview would be apt. Men like Spalding were insistent upon the Catholics having caused the murders, let's work out all of his and others' claims.

• Outbreak of the violence More details on the release of hostages and the persecution of the murders by the other Cayuse, Walla Walla and Nez Perce (I've read passing mentions of this)

• Trial Far more on contemporary views, especially on the innocence of some or all of the men, is required. However, I think it would be more appropriate to have such a broad overview located on the Cayuse War page.

• Anniversary remembrance This content is barely related to the massacre, and should be split.

• Articles to write: Walla Walla Expedition, Tom Hill (Delaware) and Archibald McKinlay.

I'll keep trudging forward. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

All of the little girls were raped by the pedophile Indians

... beginning with Miss Bewley, according to survivor Catherine Sager Pringle's eyewitness account in Across the Plains in 1844. It's on page 32 in the Ye Galleon Press second edition of 1993.Starhistory22 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a source that Bewley was certainly rape by someone named Tamsucky, and by Five Crows. Five Crows wasn't involved in the massacre, and I don't know about Tamsucky. The paper I link below certainly is interesting in the subject matter of "Indian captives". The conclusion seems to be that they didn't rape, per se, but that captive women were spoils, and were expected to become like concubines. Brutal times.

From a thesis at the University of Washington [3] (PDF):

280 Ibid, 19. Lorinda [Bewley] was repeatedly raped by a Cayuse name Tamsucky before her captivity with Chief Five Crows.

174.204.129.91 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Whitman massacre → Tragedy at Waiilatpu – The name "Whitman massacre" is no longer in use by the National Park Service. Instead "Tragedy at Waiilatpu" has been used to describe the events in a more neutral way that accounts for the tragic loss of life of not only the Whitmans and the white settlers, but also of the Cayuse people. I believe following the NPS' lead here makes sense for Wikipedia's standards.

References

CodeHitchhiker (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed name does not appear to be in common use, or even basically in use at all, while Wikipedia tries to use WP:COMMONNAMEs. A search for the proposed name seems to basically turn up nothing. The referenced NPS brochure only uses the term in one place – as a section heading, without any commentary on the term – it could be simply a description of the event as a section heading rather than their official name for the event. The referenced Crosscut source uses the term only in one place, in quotes, when quoting the 1997 brochure – not as the name they are generally using or planning to use for the event. The 2009 Columbia Magazine article is not readily accessible – even searching for the term on the Columbia Magazine website turns up nothing. A web search finds no other uses of the term other than the brochure and the Crosscut article, and Google Ngram finds no uses. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Found a scan of the magazine: https://www.washingtonhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2009-V23-N1-final.pdf

  Not sure how you are searching, but it's in many books, including one of the main sources of information for the history of the Walla Walla Valley: Lyman's history of Walla Walla County and The Pacific Northwest: An Interpretive History CodeHitchhiker (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  In the scan of the Columbia Magazine article that you referenced, I found "Tragedy at Waiilatpu" only used as the beginning of the title of the article, not used or commented on directly in the article body, which uses "the Whitman massacre" twice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: This strikes me of showing a "white people can't be massacred" attitude. Also while I personally believe "massacre" is POV, "tragedy" is even more so, and in any case does not really describe the event. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Whitmans were not even the only white people killed at Waiilatpu. "Whitman massacre" describes a very narrow sliver of the events in this article, both of white people and Cayuse people deaths. Even being born in Walla Walla the title of this article has struck me as an odd way to describe these events prior to learning about the poisoning and Cayuse trial details. CodeHitchhiker (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google Books finds plenty of results for the phrase "tragedy at Waiilatpu". I thought it interesting that a contemporary report in the Missionary Herald (1848) referred to it as "the tragedy of Waiilatpu",[4] as did the 1941 American Guide Series book on Washington.[5] That said, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Whitman massacre". Even a book by Cassandra Tate in 2020 (she wrote the article sourced above) used "The Whitman Massacre" as its subtitle.[6] I think "tragedy at Waiilatpu" should be a redirect here, and it should be stated in the lead as that is the NPS description, and is mentioned as an alternate description in a 2021 book on the massacre,[7], as well as in other documents.[8][9][10] Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that "Whitman massacre" is the WP:COMMONNAME as the article is written, because it doesn't meet the WP:CRITERIA. This article has grown beyond the murders of the Whitmans, which is entirely the reason why the Whitmans became famous and widely recognized in the United States as being heroes that settled the pacific northwest. The news amongst the settlers was, of course, centered on the nature of their deaths (and followed by a lie circulated by another missionary). The article now includes context about the entirety of the events, which is not only not centered on the deaths of the Whitmans, but also the events surrounding their deaths. It may make sense that there be two articles if it is still viewed as being more prominent, though I'm not against adding the redirect, it feels like the current title does not accurately describe the contents of the article.

  Despite Tate's book using "Whitman massacre" as part of its subtitle, the book is about re-framing it more neutrally. The Whitmans deaths is introduced initially as an "attack" to open the book, and specifically discussed as being historically the focal/starting point of the historical event, but then later referred to as "Whitman tragedy" in the discussion about their murders in context of the poisoning, plague, and trial. Re-framing the sequence of events holistically and neutrally as the murders of the Whitmans being a part of a tragic event involving the Whitmans, white settlers, and the natives is the basis of the entire discussion in Chapter 10.

  Text from the introduction:

  In the 1980s the National Park Service, which operates the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, stopped commemorating the annual anniversary of the attack on the mission; redesigned its displays to give more attention to the Cayuse and a more balanced assessment of their interactions with the Whitmans; and phased out the use of the word “massacre” in favor of more neutral language. “[Massacre]” appeared five times in a four-page brochure distributed by the Park Service in the late 1950s. In contrast, it was not used at all in brochures available in 1997, the 150th anniversary of what instead was called the Tragedy at Waiilatpu.

  CodeHitchhiker (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. Google Trends shows mild interest over the years for "whitman massacre"[11] and none for "tragedy at Waiilatpu".[12] Google Books Ngram Viewer gives similar results.[13] "Whitman Massacre" is how the group of events became widely known, even if it's a sensationalized description. I think that aspect and the NPS reframing should be discussed in the article, but I don't think it meets the bar for changing the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll work on that for now and add the redirect. CodeHitchhiker (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  That would be great, CodeHitchhiker. The naming issue and the NPS's changing of their framework and the background in the article & book by Tate can provide a more comprehensive context for readers that will hopefully give better balance to the events and their aftermath. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Respectfully oppose - we try to use common names, not official names. (It is... debatable if the National Park Service even has the "official" right to name the events that took place near present-day Walla Walla.) There are many reasons why the NPS may not be using the current name, and they are entitled to follow their own policies and procedures for how they name it, just as we follow ours. The event is still widely referred to by the present title, and it fits all five of the WP:AT criteria at least as well as the newly proposed title. Red Slash 15:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikivoice not warranted when describing the name "Tragedy at Waiilatpu" as "more neutral". Attribution required.

Concerning the last paragraph, where it says not calling it a massacre is an attempt to more neutrally and holistically describe the event, appears to be in Wikivoice. This should be attributed instead, especially since consensus above has us on "massacre" for the common name.

Further, to address the fallacy in this revisionism, the article is about the massacre (and indeed, the vicious murder of 13 people counts as a massacre). Such events are superbly historic exactly because they are so short temporally, but they had far lasting effects on history. For example, the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and the September 11 attacks, are all articles about those events, and the effects are discussed. Major effects, like World War I, World War II, and the War on terror have their own articles, and are also not exactly fully encompassing of all the effects themselves. History is long and messy.

If the effects of the Whitman Massacre need more than discussion on this article, figure out the common name and make a new article. Ain't nobody calling it the tragedy of whatever, I can promise you.

But this "whites can't be massacred" flavor is repulsive, and should not be in Wikivoice.

As an aside, I was just visiting the Cataldo Mission (nearby), where the CDA Tribe has somehow managed to "own" all of it, while the parks department pays for everything. This arrangement apparently gives the Tribe great influence over what's written and displayed in the newish museum. In a related and conspiratorial "brown washing" kind of way, one of the plaques says "Disease killed many Indians. It seemed to the Indians that the disease always came with the white man. Did it always come with the white man?"

Racism of any color is really gross. About 60 Cayuse brutally murdered 13 white people for specious reasons, and then took 53 white people hostage. Some modern white-hating hacks want to downplay this, even though everyone close to it is dead for a hundred years.

174.204.129.91 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)