So... there seems to be agreement now in the thread that (a) history is pure relativism and historians make up whatever they want so who cares what's taught, (b) kids don't really remember details so who cares what they learn, and (c) my family didn't steal land so why should I feel "guilty."

I liked the earlier part of this thread where the consensus seemed to center around regardless of whether a Land Run reenactment took place that teachers must teach the Land Runs in an accurate historical context that addresses the varying causes, perspectives, and consequences associated those events. We don't learn about the tragedies in our history (which there is plenty of this associated with the Land Runs) so people will feel "guilty" today, we learn about it so we can learn from mistakes, tell stories of injustice so they are not simply justified or rationalized today, and to make a better society. The Native experiences in this state is full of a lot of tragedy that should be understood so no Native (or otherwise informed) students have to go home and ask their parents, "Why is the Land Run a fun, celebration when you told me it caused our ancestors so much pain?" In the end, this is about being historically accurate... I don't think that is too much to ask.

Many Native Americans had no cultural concept of land ownership, therefore lands being "unassigned" didn't really mean much to some tribes.

The issue is complex, and deserves more discussion than most schools give it. However, the Native American way of life was definitely impacted. And for many, it was not in their interest.

This article gives a brief account from a Native American standpoint: April 22 marks anniversary of Oklahoma Land Run (http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/life/commentary/9815-aprill-22-marks-anniversary-of-oklahoma-land-run)

History is replete with conquered peoples. Good on Natives that they have their own viewpoint, but just because they didn't believe land could be owned didn't make it so. And to be fair, I'd challenge you to find a single tribe which still believes land cannot be owned.

As far as the land run participants were concerned, this was land bought fair and square from the French, was lost by the tribes as part of their punishment for picking the wrong side in the Civil War, and was now being settled. We need not treat conquered peoples with such kid gloves. They are free to view this as something unfortunate, but for the many people who participated, many themselves conquered and marginalized minorities (the Irish), this was a great opportunity.

It's also part of Oklahoma's legend--the great landrun. It's an act which we can be proud of. I visit most cities in the world and there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of year-old things still in existence. To think that someone as near in time as my great grandmother came to this state when there was almost no human habitation whatsoever and that those people built the whole damn thing is something we can be proud of, not ashamed of.

History is replete with conquered peoples. Good on Natives that they have their own viewpoint, but just because they didn't believe land could be owned didn't make it so. And to be fair, I'd challenge you to find a single tribe which still believes land cannot be owned.

As far as the land run participants were concerned, this was land bought fair and square from the French, was lost by the tribes as part of their punishment for picking the wrong side in the Civil War, and was now being settled. We need not treat conquered peoples with such kid gloves. They are free to view this as something unfortunate, but for the many people who participated, many themselves conquered and marginalized minorities (the Irish), this was a great opportunity.

It's also part of Oklahoma's legend--the great landrun. It's an act which we can be proud of. I visit most cities in the world and there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of year-old things still in existence. To think that someone as near in time as my great grandmother came to this state when there was almost no human habitation whatsoever and that those people built the whole damn thing is something we can be proud of, not ashamed of.

I'm proud to be American-American.

History is replete with conquered peoples. Good on Natives that they have their own viewpoint, but just because they didn't believe land could be owned didn't make it so.

This is exactly what the people who stole their land said.


To think that someone as near in time as my great grandmother came to this state when there was almost no human habitation whatsoever and that those people built the whole damn thing is something we can be proud of, not ashamed of.

Again, it's not about "guilt" or "shame," it's about learning from all parts of history - the good, the bad, the ugly. There are many things to be proud of in Oklahoma's history. And there are absolute injustices that should cause us to consider how we can prevent such things in the future.

Of course history is complex, but by just saying, "hey, you know what, some Indians probably had their land stolen and their communities destroyed, but you know what, I love Oklahoma so I don't think we should worry about it" is to rationalize and justify what was done.

I have a distinct feeling that a lot of people in this thread haven't read the works of Angie Debo and how children were conned by businessmen just doing business. I love Oklahoma. There are many amazing people in the history of the state. There were many people who participated in the Land Run who found a unique opportunity to prosper (see Far and Away for cinematic version of that tale), but diverse Native perspectives must be heard, understood, and honored.

This is exactly what the people who stole their land said.

And they were right. They were very successful in taking land from the Indians. So?



Again, it's not about "guilt" or "shame," it's about learning from all parts of history - the good, the bad, the ugly. There are many things to be proud of in Oklahoma's history. And there are absolute injustices that should cause us to consider how we can prevent such things in the future.

And grade school is not the time to get into that. Grade school kids are too young to understand the complexities of history. When I was in high school we were doing good if people understood that Hitler did not rule Germany in World War One. This subject is something that should be addressed in high school or college.




I have a distinct feeling that a lot of people in this thread haven't read the works of Angie Debo and how children were conned by businessmen just doing business.

I've read a lot of history books. Not hers, but a lot. There are a lot of people who got a raw deal in history. Native Americans are not alone in that.


but diverse Native perspectives must be heard, understood, and honored.

I disagree. We are under no obligation to honor the perspective of anyone else. People have a right to their own perspectives, but we also have a right to completely disregard them.

Did the Indians get screwed over pretty badly? Yes. Those tribes were part of a long list of societies who were on the losing end of cultural conflict throughout history. Many descendants of those tribes today still identify with their old cultures. I understand that. Should schools be sensitive to racial minorities when teaching American history? Probably so. But I remember that our history classes, even back in the 80s, would make some mention of the plight of the Indian tribes. But at the end of the day, they are really no different than any other group who lost a war and had their territory taken.

And they were right. They were very successful in taking land from the Indians. So?

It was unjust. We should care about injustice, if for no other reason, because living in a more just society provides us all more security. Martin Luther King makes a far better case for this than me in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/letterfrombirmingham_wwcw.pdf)." And, this is particularly relevant because most of the injustices perpetrated against Native peoples were considered legal.


And grade school is not the time to get into that. Grade school kids are too young to understand the complexities of history. When I was in high school we were doing good if people understood that Hitler did not rule Germany in World War One. This subject is something that should be addressed in high school or college.

Just because your school experiences had low standards does not mean that we should continue that policy. Young kids deal with what is fair/unfair, right/wrong everyday. They are the same questions adults wrestle with but in different ways. Responsible teachers can teach about any topic in an age appropriate way. I work with educators who do this everyday in their classroom. You do not teach 1st graders about genocide, but you can teach them lessons that allow them to think about right/wrong in ways that are at the essence of these issues. For example, instead of teaching 1st graders lies or myths via a whitewashed history of Columbus' encounters with the Arawaks, you could sing THIS SONG (http://www.sisterschoice.com/1492.html) with them and help them develop an understanding of the different and diverse Native cultures that existed in the Americas. This is a big shift from just telling Columbus' perspective, which, by the way, is an important part of an accurate history too.


I've read a lot of history books. Not hers, but a lot. There are a lot of people who got a raw deal in history. Native Americans are not alone in that.

You're just deflecting. If someone in your family was murdered, would you say, "oh well, lots of people get murdered." You do not have to engage in this discussion, but it is the topic of this thread and one that is part of Oklahoma's state history, which is required to be taught in schools.


I disagree. We are under no obligation to honor the perspective of anyone else. People have a right to their own perspectives, but we also have a right to completely disregard them.

If you want to live in a society where people "completely disregard" others then keep fighting for that. I guess I'm more into learning from others and living together (including you, hoyasooner - and I have learned a lot from you on this board), because, in the end, what else is our work but to leave the earth a little better than we found it. Since you seem to be making a case FOR indifference towards others, here's Elie Wiesel's "The Perils of Indifference (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wiesel.htm)." Again, he is far more eloquent than me.


But at the end of the day, they are really no different than any other group who lost a war and had their territory taken.

Yes. Lots of groups have faced injustice and it was never okay. I certainly am concerned with lots of contemporary and historical issues of injustice. This is one of them.

Again, my basic point is that we should teach history accurately, which means including Native perspectives in any pedagogy concerning Land Runs. You really wouldn't think there would be a lot of opponents to that proposition, but I guess that's what message boards are for. I actually think it's too narrow of a response by OKCPS to outright ban Land Runs in schools because these can look dramatically different depending on the teacher.

This is exactly what the people who stole their land said.

"Stole" is such a loaded word. There were treaties signed. Of course, those treaties were signed under a modicum of duress, but nevertheless, the tribes chose to flee rather than fight. Other indigenous peoples like the picts were not so lucky. They were pretty well completely exterminated. Territory in the grand scheme of things only belongs to you if you can defend it. The tribes don't have a claim to their lands just because they found it first, their tribes were valid only so much as they as sovereigns could defend their territory. Badly outgunned, they chose to relocate.

And then they decided to cast their lot with the Confederacy. When you violate the treaties you sign and the aggrieved party has the ability to completely wipe you out of existence, bad things happen. Considering each of the tribes only lost a little territory, things could have been much worse... and probably would have been much worse if we knew at the time where the oil was and how valuable it would become 50 years later.


Again, it's not about "guilt" or "shame," it's about learning from all parts of history - the good, the bad, the ugly. There are many things to be proud of in Oklahoma's history. And there are absolute injustices that should cause us to consider how we can prevent such things in the future.

I know.. right? Did you see Avatar? We STILL hadn't learned about how to treat indigenous people.


Of course history is complex, but by just saying, "hey, you know what, some Indians probably had their land stolen and their communities destroyed, but you know what, I love Oklahoma so I don't think we should worry about it" is to rationalize and justify what was done.

It's perfectly acceptable. I have Irish heritage. I don't grouse about my ancestors being nearly exterminated by the English and actually having to flee their homeland because the choice was to flee or die. What was done to my people is not something I think very much about at all.

So much white entitlement in this thread.

Pretty sad.

Don't know if I am more disgusted with the ignorance displayed in this thread, or just the insensitivity,

Justin Timberlake said it best, "cry me a river...".

Justin Timberlake said it best, "cry me a river...".

Justin Timberlake was talking about breaking up with Britney Spears, not the attempted, systematic destruction of tribal communities. But, we get it, you don't care about Native peoples or their histories. That's clear. But there's really no need to keep posting simply to antagonize those who do.

Might as well ban Independence Day too while their at. Only fair right? That event had far more reaching consequences to Native Americans than the land run. The British getting in the way of the colonies western expansion is an often overlooked reason for the revolutionary war.

So let me ask dankrutka - if it was 100% up to you what would you like to see done? How would you right the wrongs of history?

Well this thing turned bad really quick, didn't it? I'm just going to back out of this one now.....wow.....

Keep the land run reenactments, just make it real. Have the darker skinned students cower off to the side as bands of poor impoverished natives wondering just how their going to survive now.
Land run celebrations all need to got the way of Columbus Day celebrations. The natives don't find the history quaint. quit erecting monumnens and depictions on public works. Did Mary Fallin tickle anyone else with her speech at the RNC touting the land run as proof people don't need any help from government to thrive. immaculate stupidity

So that is your big solution Edgar - re-enactments of Indians cowering while white men claim the land and no more monuments to Columbus?

So let me ask dankrutka - if it was 100% up to you what would you like to see done? How would you right the wrongs of history?

I haven't read the thread all the way through, but in what I've perused, I don't think anything dankrutka has said indicates he's trying to right the wrongs of history. I think he's just asking us to be honest and objective and comprehensive.

There's no reason we can't tell little kids the truth. We think we can't because we struggle to deal with it ourselves.

It's real simple: European-Americans wanted land and they took it away from Native Americans. That's the foundation that needs to be laid: The honest, comprehensive, objective truth. Same thing with Slavery. Same thing with the East Coast and Native Americans. Same thing with the Alamo.

Rightness and Wrongness is not what we need to address. But teaching in such a way that excludes or at the very least acts to prevent the possibility of moral questioning is wrong.

Yes, quit erecting "monumens"! Social Justice Warriors Unite! Form of Shadid!

So that is your big solution Edgar - re-enactments of Indians cowering while white men claim the land and no more monuments to Columbus?

For the sake of historical accuracy if a district still wants to reenact the land as some sort of celebration of statehood cowering oppressed Indians is quite apt. And surely don't depict the exploitation on public works like what unfortunately happened with the new bridge in Norman.

If we're worried about historical accuracy, can we just replace it with a mural of Mick Cornett spanking Ed Shadid?

If we're worried about historical accuracy, can we just replace it with a mural of Mick Cornett spanking Ed Shadid?

good one Jerry! btw, did you notice the council is doubling and tripling down on magical thinking and total ignorance of historical realities and plan to build a cc with huge space available. going cheap!

They must have gotten instructions from the illuminati... er, I mean, the chamber.

In the end, this is about being historically accurate... I don't think that is too much to ask.It's not too much to ask, but it is too much to expect, as far as I can see.

True historians, as distinguished from jingoists and propagandists, attempt to be historically accurate, but even they are burdened down with the baggage of their cultural backgrounds. And even those who participated in the original events cannot accurately report "the big picture" since it's usually too big for any small group to perceive.

A case in point might be the "battle" that took place along a river that cannot be named here, a few miles west of Cheyenne in Roger Mills county. For many years, a human skull was on display in a window on Main Street of that county seat, with a card claiming that it was the skull of Black Kettle, killed in Custer's raid on a winter camp. Someone finally subjected it to tests that showed it actually was that of a young female; to the best of my knowledge it has been returned to her people for appropriate rites.

Meanwhile our federal government has turned the site of a glory hound's massacre of the most friendly group in the area, into a "national monument" celebrating his great victory. Where's the historical accuracy in that?

How should a teacher of our coming generations present this story? Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it; no truer words were ever spoken. But what part, if any, of this event is suitable for study by the youngsters?

I could go on for hours about such things as "manifest destiney" and our national habit of backing such folk as Cuba's Batista, which led to Castro's successful revolt, or for that matter a few others such as Rhee in Korea, or the succession of corrupt officials who occupied Saigon in the 60s and 70s.

And I would ask again, who decides what is accurate? My answer to that it that it must be an individual decision, and one must be willing to accept all of its consequences. We seem to be paying a high price for several generations' failures in that respect. Can't we do better?

The tribes don't have a claim to their lands just because they found it first, their tribes were valid only so much as they as sovereigns could defend their territory.The folk who found it first were no longer here by the time the Europeans arrived. The tribes that (some, maybe most, of) our ancestors may have mistreated had, themselves, taken it away from earlier inhabitants. The mounds at Spiro give mute evidence of such happenings.

Something that we have to accept is the fact that we humans are predators as well as prey. It's our secret of survival over the centuries. However we should also accept the need to control and channel our predatory instincts, driving them into areas that can improve life for all of us, not just the few who have clawed their way to the top of the food chain. It's a goal we have little hope of reaching, but we can (and, I'm convinced, must) continue to strive toward it.

Actually, this land was home to fish if we go way back to when Oklahoma was covered by a shallow inland sea. Mother Nature tooketh away...

Keep the land run reenactments, just make it real. Have the darker skinned students cower off to the side as bands of poor impoverished natives wondering just how their going to survive now.
Land run celebrations all need to got the way of Columbus Day celebrations. The natives don't find the history quaint. quit erecting monumnens and depictions on public works. Did Mary Fallin tickle anyone else with her speech at the RNC touting the land run as proof people don't need any help from government to thrive. immaculate stupidity

Don't forget to include some Seminoles and Creeks crying to themselves how they wish they supported the North instead of the side that believed in slavery.

Not that it was right for taking land away from them for punishment, but If were going to be historically accurate...........

Jim Kyle, you are such an asset to the OKCTalk community. Your posts are always thought-provoking and respectful to the wide range of opinions on this forum. Many things you've "said" on various threads have made me re-think a position, or otherwise challenge myself to think more deeply or broadly about whatever the topic at hand. I do so enjoy that quality in you, and feel fortunate to have the benefit of your years and wisdom.

I am humbled by this comment. I'd hardly call my opinions "wisdom" but I do consider myself a history enthusiast, and I strive to keep it as accurate as I can -- in part to compensate for the years that I spent ignoring, and consequently repeating, mistakes of years past.

If my observations cause anyone to re-think any position, I count them to be successful. Only by continually re-evaluting our beliefs can we hope to advance a bit farther out of our savage background.

Don't forget to include some Seminoles and Creeks crying to themselves how they wish they supported the North instead of the side that believed in slavery.

It's a lot more complicated than that. The US Army abandoned what is Oklahoma today at the start of the war removing all troops leaving the the tribes unprotected and largely surrounded by Confederate Texas and Arkansas to the south and east and hostile plains tribes to the west.

And in any case, the Creek, Cherokee and Seminole tribes all split with soldiers on both sides of the war and competing governments that were pro-South and pro-Union.

The treaties that the tribes were forced to sign after the war were the Reconstruction treaties in 1866 and while they did ceed some land they didn't open Oklahoma to white settlement and they actually guaranteed tribal sovereignty within tribal lands. The tribes had to sign no matter who they backed in the war.

The Dawes act of 1887 and it amendments, more than 20 years later, violated the agreements of the Reconstruction treaties and opened both tribal lands and unoccupied territories for settlement and effectively ended tribal governments with the Curtis act of 1908.

One of the most frustrating things, for me, presented in this thread is the seemingly prevailing sentiment that children are incapable of understanding any concepts of the Land Run other than "the white people settled this land, and it was good."

I understand that third graders will not be able to write a thesis concerning the ethics of the Land Runs, but they are capable of discussing issues that come from more than one side of history. Sure, their discussion will be different and less in depth than a group of college students, but it can be done in a way that is age appropriate and thought provoking in an elementary context.

I don't understand the extreme, uncompromising opinions, and the sarcasm that goes along with them, that several people have expressed. Why are so many seemingly against schools making an attempt to provide a more accurate and representative study of history?

Something that we have to accept is the fact that we humans are predators as well as prey. It's our secret of survival over the centuries. However we should also accept the need to control and channel our predatory instincts, driving them into areas that can improve life for all of us, not just the few who have clawed their way to the top of the food chain. It's a goal we have little hope of reaching, but we can (and, I'm convinced, must) continue to strive toward it.

And you have to put into context the mindset of white America at the turn of the century. We had pretty much just recently realized the goals of our "manifest destiny" of controlling all of the land from sea to shining sea. We had just picked a fight with the Spanish and grown the American empire to control Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba. We were building the Panama Canal. We were building big things and realizing the destiny the destiny those in that time believed was that of the United States: hegemony over our own country and an overseas empire which would make the 17th and 18th century European powers jealous. We really believed that European-Americans were a more evolved species than others and really attached a subhuman status to any non-European (except Spaniards, they were also subhuman).

The mindset of those in power at the turn of the century is equally at odds with our current world than that of the mindset at the turn of the previous century to that when slave ownership was considered virtuous by many. I suppose it's fun in academic circles or even just for history buffs to judge prior generations through our post-modern "evolved" spectrum... and that probably should be happening at the high school and university levels.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about childhood rituals which hopefully impart just a little bit of history to our children about what is special about our state. That we have a unique history. It is freakin' cool that the city I live in was an empty field in 1899 and a thriving city by 1900. It's a great story with plenty of winners and losers. Countries and states all have national or local mythologies which we impart on our kids to be culturally inclusive. This is one of those childhood rituals I hope we keep in place.

Leave it for children and university students who are able to think more abstractly to apply postmodern principles to the landrun. Let the kids dress up and run their wagons across a field.

Leave it for children and university students who are able to think more abstractly to apply postmodern principles to the landrun. Let the kids dress up and run their wagons across a field.

This degrades the importance of elementary education. Elementary education should not be viewed as something that can be corrected later, just for the sake of keeping it simple. Schools and educators should be (and many are) exploring ways in which they can more accurately present history in an age appropriate way.

This type of thinking is incredibly frustrating and derogatory to elementary educators.

This degrades the importance of elementary education. Elementary education should not be viewed as something that can be corrected later, just for the sake of keeping it simple. Schools and educators should be (and many are) exploring ways in which they can more accurately present history in an age appropriate way.

This type of thinking is incredibly frustrating and derogatory to elementary educators.

Most elementary students are concrete thinkers. It's a developmental thing. Teaching history from a multitude of perspectives at that age is not likely to go over well or be a good use of time.

And can I add, as a child of a history teacher.. the hardest and most important thing at that young age is to get them interested and engaged in history. That's why the focus tends to be on fun events like land runs, or colonial days, etc. Get them engaged now, and then try to keep them engaged and teach them more nuances and details as they grow.

Most elementary students are concrete thinkers. It's a developmental thing. Teaching history from a multitude of perspectives at that age is not likely to go over well or be a good use of time.

I agree, to an extent. Many are concrete thinkers. Still, they are capable of understanding that there was more to the story than "white people settled unoccupied lands."

I don't believe they should be taught that white people stole the Indians' land, however I do think it is worth teaching that the land had been occupied before. Save the ethics and philosophies for older students, but don't teach young ones something that isn't true.

And can I add, as a child of a history teacher.. the hardest and most important thing at that young age is to get them interested and engaged in history. That's why the focus tends to be on fun events like land runs, or colonial days, etc. Get them engaged now, and then try to keep them engaged and teach them more nuances and details as they grow.

My mother is also a teacher. It is tough to get many kids interested in history. I believe an argument could be made that students below a certain age should not take a history class. However, if we are going to teach history, then it should be portrayed to the students in as accurate a manner as possible.

Don't forget to include some Seminoles and Creeks crying to themselves how they wish they supported the North instead of the side that believed in slavery.

Not that it was right for taking land away from them for punishment, but If were going to be historically accurate...........

No one was fighting over Indian territory so it's not spoils of war.

I was curious so I went to check into the current state academic standards for grade 3. Here's part of what I found.


3. Describe the many Native American cultures that have
inhabited present-day Oklahoma including the Spiro
Mound Builders, the Five Tribes, and the Plains Indians.
4. Describe early expeditions in Oklahoma including those
of Coronado, Washington Irving, and George Catlin.
5. Describe the migrations and settlements by Native
Americans including the Trail of Tears.
6. Describe cowboy life and cattle drives as typified by
experiences along the Chisholm Trail.
7. Explain the opening of the Unassigned Lands and
distinguish between the points of view of both Native
Americans and settlers. (CCRIT 6)

Bolding is mine. Seems like we're doing what folks are asking for. How deep they get into stuff is up in the air, but there seems to be some looks at the history more than just "woo... race for the land"!

The problem is, people aren't asking (per the news stories) for more to be taught. They're wanting the land run reenactments not to happen at all.

Why don't we just teach children everything they need to know in first grade and give them back the next 11 years. I remember when I was taught the "plum pudding" model of the atom. What a freaking waste of time since it had already been proven wrong over 100 years earlier. Why didn't my 7th grade teacher just start with quantum mechanics and string theory and save me the time because apparently I had the mental capacity to fully understand and apply it.

To be fair, I was going off of my personal experiences. It may be different now.

I am torn on whether or not schools should hold Land Run reenactments. I understand why many say they should, but I also don't know how it could be done without promoting one group over the other(s).

"the white people settled this land, and it was good."

The lesson I learn was that Oklahoma prairie life sucked and involved hard work.

Why don't we just teach children everything they need to know in first grade and give them back the next 11 years. I remember when I was taught the "plum pudding" model of the atom. What a freaking waste of time since it had already been proven wrong over 100 years earlier. Why didn't my 7th grade teacher just start with quantum mechanics and string theory and save me the time because apparently I had the mental capacity to fully understand and apply it.

I'm not making that argument. However, what was the benefit of being taught something that was proven incorrect? I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make.

Just think of the "land run re-enactment" as history's version of the plum pudding model. It was just a stepping stone on the path to a greater understanding.

Okay. If that's your view, then (with no disrespect) we simply don't agree.

Third graders aren't toddlers. They're eight. Has anyone here every had a conversation with an eight year old? They certainly as a rule are capable of more nuanced thinking than some here are suggesting.

Third graders aren't toddlers. They're eight. Has anyone here every had a conversation with an eight year old? They certainly as a rule are capable of more nuanced thinking than some here are suggesting.

Half of the adults on this board aren't even capable of that.

So, if schoolyard re-enactments are not appropriate on all the grounds discussed here, what about the Centennial Land Run Monument, which appears to only glorify one side of the event? Seems we have some serious ideological inconsistency between public education and public art/tourist attractions.

So, if schoolyard re-enactments are not appropriate on all the grounds discussed here, what about the Centennial Land Run Monument, which appears to only glorify one side of the event? Seems we have some serious ideological inconsistency between public education and public art/tourist attractions.

Not to mention a college football team.

So, if schoolyard re-enactments are not appropriate on all the grounds discussed here, what about the Centennial Land Run Monument, which appears to only glorify one side of the event? Seems we have some serious ideological inconsistency between public education and public art/tourist attractions.

Heck with that, why did we even celebrate the Land Run centennical at all? That is like Germany celebrating the opening of Auschwitz (if some people are to be taken seriously). Remember the Olympic Festival in 1989 - what a dark day in history that was for Oklahoma City. [/sarc]

Don't want to start a whole new thread on this . . . BUT . . . (speaking of Political INcorrectness)
It will be a hollow victory--or a well earned loss--for Locust Grove in the playoffs, especially with the judge's decision coming right on the heels of Capitol Hill being stripped of their 88 year old mascot.

How about instead of "Redskins" Capitol Hill adopts . . .
"Senators" . . . "Taupeskins" . . . "Moderates" or "Neanderthals" as a new mascot?

(let this post be a warning about what happens when you drop 75-cents on a copy of The Oklahoman and actually read one of the cover stories instead of just doing the Crossword, the Crytoquote and the Sudoku Puzzle)

(pps: welcome back, jtf)

Third graders aren't toddlers. They're eight. Has anyone here every had a conversation with an eight year old? They certainly as a rule are capable of more nuanced thinking than some here are suggesting.

What the heck is a "nuanced"?
Is it like a cookie monster? or more like a nauga?

So after all references to Native Americans are erased from the national public lexicon, what do the supporters of such removal hope will result? I can only imagine the cerebral mêlée which would occur in an “offended individual’s” head if a white supremacists group was advocating for the removal of all ethnic names from schools, cities, states, and teams.

If I were one of The People I would be offended by the term "Native 'American'".
"America" is based on the name of some Italian explorer or sailor or geographer or whatever.
In fact, the concept of "Native" is applied from a perspective outside of that to whom the label is applied.

But I'm not one of The People. So I'm going to get offended about the use of the word "Viking".
The connotations are not particularly positive. Especially when applied to a group of men attempting to move a "pigskin" up and down an artificial meadow while simultaneously attempting to prevent another group of men from so doing.

(maybe Capitol Hill can adopt the term "Laters" (instead of Sooners?))

Historically the Vikings have been so cute and cuddly how could anyone be offended. Can't help wanting to hug a Viking when you meet one.

If I were one of The People I would be offended by the term "Native 'American'".
"America" is based on the name of some Italian explorer or sailor or geographer or whatever.
In fact, the concept of "Native" is applied from a perspective outside of that to whom the label is applied.


This^. On NewsOK I apologize every time I use the phrase knowing it is offensive (and on Oklahoma licenses plates no less). I can't think of what to call "Those People" that doesn't define them in the negative (meaning being defined by what they are not). You can't even use the word "indigenous" because that implies they were here before the white man and would thus be defining them in relation to the arrival of Europeans.

I guess I have to ask, how do "Those People" collectively refer to themselves in an non-European centric way?

Historically the Vikings have been so cute and cuddly how could anyone be offended. Can't help wanting to hug a Viking when you meet one.

Tell that to one of them Monks on the east coast of Ireland . . .
("Fighting Irish" . . . that pisses me off and brings out the irish in me all at the same time. it is nearly impossible to spell all that--in Celtic ("Kelltic" a.k.a. "Selltic") so my self-esteem has been unrepair-ably damaged. I guess.)

(How about The Capitol Hill Monks?)
(Maybe The Capitol Hill Chargers?--even at the risk of Citibank suing?)

This^. On NewsOK I apologize every time I use the phrase knowing it is offensive (and on Oklahoma licenses plates no less). I can't think of what to call "Those People" that doesn't define them in the negative (meaning being defined by what they are not). You can't even use the word "indigenous" because that implies they were here before the white man and would thus be defining them in relation to the arrival of Europeans.

I guess I have to ask, how do "Those People" collectively refer to themselves in an non-European centric way?

I dunno . . . I guess you'd have to ask Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cosby, Al 'n Jessie, Uncle Remus, Walt Disnety or Famous Amos. That or consult a Ouija Board . . . Although I must warn you, in advance, that "Oui-Ja" has notoriously European roots. =)

. . . I can only imagine the cerebral mêlée in an “offended individual’s” . . .

Can you imagine what a "wonderful, wonderful world it would be" if Native Earthians had mastered Alt Key Codes? I can. =) Why . . . There wouldn't have to be any Land Rushes or Black Fridays at all . . . Instead there would be Property Strolls and Rainbow Fridays.

And when the sirens go off . . .
We could all be dinner for the Morlocks . . . (/sarc)

(apology: newzK49 is running in the background)

(OK . . . I'll admit it: I'm not a little suspicious, wary and weary of a Skool Superindentant that can't spell New rite.)

(sunuvabeach): Sony Pictures got hacked and now nuances are running amok! =)

I've never strolled before. I sashayed once, but that was in front of the draft board.

I've never strolled before. I sashayed once, but that was in front of the draft board.

The Great Land Sashay of 1889 . . . sounds like something from a Mel Brooks movie.
(not that there's anything "wrong" with that . . .)