OKCPS Banned Land Run

[Tydude]

I am being told by a Friend of mine that OKCPS has announced that it will banned the Land Run in its Elementary Schools. Big News for the state of Oklahoma

[ljbab728]

I am being told by a Friend of mine that OKCPS has announced that it will banned the Land Run in its Elementary Schools. Big News for the state of Oklahoma

Maybe we should wait until there is some official information about that before getting too excited.

[BrettM2]

Maybe we should wait until there is some official information about that before getting too excited.

What?!? Miss the opportunity to overreact based on incomplete or untrue information?

[ZYX2]

I am being told by a Friend of mine that OKCPS has announced that it will banned the Land Run in its Elementary Schools. Big News for the state of Oklahoma

Not really big news, many other schools in oklahoma have already stopped reenacting the Land Run.

[Mel]

Really don't want to teach them cheaters get ahead.

[hoya]

I am being told by a Friend of mine that OKCPS has announced that it will banned the Land Run in its Elementary Schools. Big News for the state of Oklahoma

Why do you hate the English language so much? You are killing it!

I count three separate verb tenses in your first sentence alone.

I am being -- This is the present participle.

OKCPS has announced -- This is the past tense.

that it will -- This is future.

banned -- Now we are back to past tense.

[Teo9969]

Sorry to be a jerk, but if you're going to correct someone, you probably ought to do it correctly...

Why do you hate the English language so much? You are killing it!

I count three separate verb tenses in your first sentence alone.

I am being -- This is the present participle. This is present progressive with a passive voice construction

OKCPS has announced -- This is the past tense. Present perfect

that it will -- This is future.

banned -- Now we are back to past tense. this is a typo that was supposed to be "ban" to complete the "will + bare infinitive" construction

And you are most certainly allowed to use more than one tense in a sentence, as you have demonstrated correctly yourself in this thread.

[dankrutka]

Any land run reenactments should be accompanied by lessons that detail the mistreatment and broken treaties/laws/promises from the federal government and many profiteering individuals. When the land run is taught simply as a celebration it is problematic because it whitewashes history. However, this doesn't mean that the land run could be done in responsible ways. I think the district should recommend historically accurate ways of doing this instead of banning it... if that is what is even happening.

[Urbanized]

Yeah, simply ignoring it isn't the answer. It's an incredibly important part of our history. So are the 1830 Indian Removal Act, the Trail of Tears and plenty of other (not always happy) lessons from Oklahoma's past that deserve thoughtful teaching.

[ZYX2]

I'd be surprised if OKCPS banned teaching of the Land Run. I took it as they would no longer allow reenactments of it, but I may be wrong.

[Urbanized]

And yet a properly-staged reenactment can be a powerful way to teach it to young minds. We just have to make sure they get the full story to go along with it.

[turnpup]

I agree with what all of you said above about teaching it responsibly, etc. Having said that, at the school my daughter attends, they do the re-enactment/celebration thing in the second grade. I'm not sure second-graders are quite ready to comprehend the realities of that situation. At least not in a detailed way. But I could be wrong...

[dankrutka]

I agree with what all of you said above about teaching it responsibly, etc. Having said that, at the school my daughter attends, they do the re-enactment/celebration thing in the second grade. I'm not sure second-graders are quite ready to comprehend the realities of that situation. At least not in a detailed way. But I could be wrong...

The point is that we don't lie about or mythologize history for children of any age. You just put it in terms that are age appropriate. So, of course, you don't discuss the worst aspects of abuse, but children have discussions on what's fair/right daily.

I often talk to my pre-service teachers about appropriate ways to teach Columbus Day that doesn't ignore the cruelty, murder, rape, and eventual genocide by the Spanish to the Arawak/Taino people, but accurately deals with the significance of Columbus' voyage AND deals with the human rights atrocities that followed. With older kids they read accounts from varying perspectives (Spanish, cruelty of Spanish cruelty Bartolome de las Casas, etc.) including the brutal stuff, but with younger kids you have to at least not tell the myths and make sure they get a sense of the Native perspective, culture, etc. It's actually pretty easy to do and I've seen first graders have great discussions about it that were appropriate and historically accurate.

[ZYX2]

I strongly agree that history should not be made into little tales with varying degrees of accuracy in order to accommodate children. However, referring specifically to holding a land run reenactment, how could it be accomplished in a manner that did not promote the settlers over the Native Americans? How could the detrimental impacts to Native Americans accurately be portrayed in a way that elementary students could recreate and understand with reasonable accuracy?

Please don't take my thoughts the wrong way. I do not believe that young children aren't intelligent enough to be capable of understanding this piece of history. Children have strong, curious minds and, as dankrutka said, can have great discussions about complex issues. However, in this specific situation, how could a land run reenactment be held without turning it into some sort of celebration?

[Jim Kyle]

However, referring specifically to holding a land run reenactment, how could it be accomplished in a manner that did not promote the settlers over the Native Americans? How could the detrimental impacts to Native Americans accurately be portrayed in a way that elementary students could recreate and understand with reasonable accuracy?

Speaking strictly of the Run itself, not the events that preceded or followed it, I'm not aware of any "detrimental impacts to Native Americans" that were involved. The Run was into the "unassigned lands," which were not part of any of the nations, and I'm not aware of any native Americans being displaced by settlers. On the contrary, by that time the Cherokee had more or less resigned themselves to coexisting with the influx of whites. The Bushyhead family, for example, proudly trace their ancestry to a red-headed Scot who joined the Nation long before 1889. The Chickasaws are spending tons of casino money these days telling folk, via TV, how they were responsible for most all the good things that have happened to this nation. The Cheyennes and Apaches aren't as vocal about it, but they were totally out of the picture in 1889 -- not until the run into the Cherokee Strip were they impacted.

And try to tell the Edmondson family, or the Rogers clan, that the impact of white culture into this area was detrimental. Not to mention the Skinners, Tallchiefs, or Mankillers...

The way in which OKC went from a single railroad station to a city literally overnight is something that can inspire youngsters. And heaven knows far too many of our young need that inspiration these days!

[ZYX2]

The way in which OKC went from a single railroad station to a city literally overnight is something that can inspire youngsters. And heaven knows far too many of our young need that inspiration these days!

While interesting, what about this is inspiring to young people?

[Just the facts]

The point is that we don't lie about or mythologize history for children of any age.

I often talk to my pre-service teachers about appropriate ways to teach Columbus Day that doesn't ignore the cruelty, murder, rape, and eventual genocide by the Spanish to the Arawak/Taino people, but accurately deals with the significance of Columbus' voyage AND deals with the human rights atrocities that followed.

Which mostly turned out to be lies by the Anglican Church disseminated in European publications and public lectures to discredit the spread of Catholicism at the time. Sometime when we think we see the big picture, there turns out to be a an even bigger picture we don't see. History is a series of events all building on or reacting to previous events. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Just sayin....

[RadicalModerate]

Which mostly turned out to be lies by the Anglican Church disseminated in European publications and public lectures to discredit the spread of Catholicism at the time. Sometime when we think we see the big picture, there turns out to be a an even bigger picture we don't see. History is a series of events all building on or reacting to previous events. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Just sayin....

Hold up thar a second, amigo . . .
Neither the Roman nor Anglican Church ever lied to anyone.
Only Henry VIII did. (at the time, he thought, "What is all this, 'it's good to be king' stuff about?" =)
Some Episcopalians might even agree?
(jest sayin' . . .)
(good to have ya' back . . . for real)

[dankrutka]

Which mostly turned out to be lies by the Anglican Church disseminated in European publications and public lectures to discredit the spread of Catholicism at the time. Sometime when we think we see the big picture, there turns out to be a an even bigger picture we don't see. History is a series of events all building on or reacting to previous events. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Just sayin....

Do you have credible sources on this? I've read a lot of major historians and never seen this mentioned. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm going to need to see some evidence.

[Just the facts]

Do you have credible sources on this? I've read a lot of major historians and never seen this mentioned. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm going to need to see some evidence.

I actually just read this a few days ago and if I can remember where I read it I will gladly pass it along. One thing I do know for certain though, propaganda wasn't invented in 1941. I am reading a historical novel about the history of Paris from Roman times to the mid-1960's so it might have been in there.

[ZYX2]

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: http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php...ahoma-land-run

[Jim Kyle]

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

Quite true, especially for the nomadic peoples such as the Kiowa, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux. The "Five Civilized Tribes" (the label applied to them during most of our history, patronizing though it is) on the other hand had a highly developed concept of ownership although the details differed from one nation (a much better term) to another. The Cherokee, in particular, had even embraced the concept of owning people!

I don't believe that a single unified "Native American standpoint" exists, any more than does a single unified "western culture." Viewpoints are intensely personal things, although they tend to be shaped by one's surroundings and one's neighbors. And of course, every culture includes its percentage of extremists, who can be quite vocal...

[Midtowner]

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

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.