Land Run Monument Update

[old okie]

What distresses me about the uproar is the repeated statement by those protesting that the land was "stolen" from the Creeks and Seminoles. They never lived on the area that would be designated "The Unassigned Lands." They were required to forfeit their claim to those lands after the Civil War as punishment for having joined the Confederacy--even though more of those tribal members fought for the UNION than did the other Five Tribes. Then, the government decided to PAY the Creeks and Seminoles for those lands. Was the price fair? Hardly, but that was what it was then. Those lands were purchased from the two tribes. Those people who are saying the Land Run monument is built on "their" tribal lands clearly know nothing of the history of the land--nor would they care. Why worry about truth?

[Rover]

FWIW, I don't either. It just sounds like they want to turn back the clock.

No one wants to turn back the clock, but they want the recording of history and the honoring of the honorable to be fairly portrayed and the evil-doing unmasked. History should be explained accurately, not as a narrative spin for one side or the other. If we only learn about the idealized side of conquering we fail to learn the lesson of the grief and suffering of the conquered. We romanticize the nobility of one without showing how their actions might not have been so noble when you actually show the suffering that went with killing and plundering. Just need to be truthful in order to progress as a society.

[Rover]

What distresses me about the uproar is the repeated statement by those protesting that the land was "stolen" from the Creeks and Seminoles. They never lived on the area that would be designated "The Unassigned Lands." They were required to forfeit their claim to those lands after the Civil War as punishment for having joined the Confederacy--even though more of those tribal members fought for the UNION than did the other Five Tribes. Then, the government decided to PAY the Creeks and Seminoles for those lands. Was the price fair? Hardly, but that was what it was then. Those lands were purchased from the two tribes. Those people who are saying the Land Run monument is built on "their" tribal lands clearly know nothing of the history of the land--nor would they care. Why worry about truth?

This is a pretty sanitized version of how the Native Americans were treated. The rationalizations are incredible.

[TheTravellers]

This is a pretty sanitized version of how the Native Americans were treated. The rationalizations are incredible.

Not a surprise coming from someone with a username of "old okie".

[Rover]

Well, you would have to start by banning "How The West Was Won."

No, I think everyone should know EXACTLY how the west was won. All the gory details. All the brutal murders. All the stolen lands. All the broken promises and treaties. Behind the popularized romanticism and rationalizations is the reality.

[old okie]

So sorry you didn't read what I said. The land was taken away from the Creeks and Seminoles--the very people who supported the Union. The government lied, cheated, killed, maimed--the way they treated the Native Americans (all tribes) was beyond horrible, and yes, it was Andrew Jackson who was the worst of the worst. However, there is no "rationalization" in what I wrote. The documentation for the sale of the land can be found very easily. When those who are saying the land was "taken," that's not what happened. I'm only talking about The Unassigned Lands--not any other areas. The Creeks and Seminoles SOLD the land--under duress? Absolutely, but given the way the government had treated all of them previously, the government would have been expected to "take" the land without compensation of any kind. The government treated the Native Americans disgustingly. But there WAS a land SALE--an arm's-length transaction.

BTW, sorry you hate my name. It refers to my age and where I'm from. Oh, and speaking of where we're from, do you know the origin of the name "Oklahoma" and what it means?

[mugofbeer]

This is a pretty sanitized version of how the Native Americans were treated. The rationalizations are incredible.

My kids have told me they were taught pretty accurate accountings of what really happened to Native Americans in school over the last 20 years. My recollections from the 70s are that l was, too, in OKC public schools. The only thing I know was not accurate was the defintion of a Boomer and the story behind them.

Despite that, as has already been said, Native Americans will be able to have their story told in their new museum half a mile away that has the potential to be massively successful and far bigger than it's starter size. NA's have also started to realize unknown new powers over the lands in OK. As l wondered in the appropriate forum several days ago, l think this SCOTUS decision could be much more than just a matter of US vs. NA jurisdiction. The land run happened and is a huge part of OK history. There is no way it should be removed.

[bombermwc]

People are making a much bigger deal out of the judgement than it is. It only affects how tribal members are tried...now federal instead of state. It puts more pressure on the federal courts in the short-term. HOWEVER, you will soon see that the tribe will have an agreement put out that handles this issue and basically puts things back the way they were. The tribes have historically been pretty good about the agreements (Gorsech said that was a major part in his decision), so it's not like this is going to shake the foundations of Eastern Oklahoma law.

[Rover]

My kids have told me they were taught pretty accurate accountings of what really happened to Native Americans in school over the last 20 years. My recollections from the 70s are that l was, too, in OKC public schools. The only thing I know was not accurate was the defintion of a Boomer and the story behind them.

Despite that, as has already been said, Native Americans will be able to have their story told in their new museum half a mile away that has the potential to be massively successful and far bigger than it's starter size. NA's have also started to realize unknown new powers over the lands in OK. As l wondered in the appropriate forum several days ago, l think this SCOTUS decision could be much more than just a matter of US vs. NA jurisdiction. The land run happened and is a huge part of OK history. There is no way it should be removed.

No, don't remove it, but along side it have an equally impressive set of sculptures showing the Native Americans trudging from their confiscated lands to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears. Show the dead they left along the way. While the land run participants were pioneering because they wanted to and were motivated to get free land, the Native Americans were forced to make a much longer journey because the land they already occupied was taken from them, and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

Just curious the name of the OK History textbook they studied from. Would like to read the accounts. Not doubting that your children are able to assuredly ascertain that they were given the whole and balanced truth of history based on their read and teacher's subsequent explanations, so I would like to see the truth as being told to our kids.

[BoulderSooner]

and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

.

the land run lands were taken because of who those 2 tribes sided with in the civil war

[jerrywall]

No, don't remove it, but along side it have an equally impressive set of sculptures showing the Native Americans trudging from their confiscated lands to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears. Show the dead they left along the way. While the land run participants were pioneering because they wanted to and were motivated to get free land, the Native Americans were forced to make a much longer journey because the land they already occupied was taken from them, and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

I'm sort of torn. At the end of the day, I gain no value from a land run monument, nor do I think I or anyone else is harmed in any way by removing it. I see it as just an impressive art installation as much as anything else, but if it needs to be modified or removed, then go for it. It affects me in no way period.

That being said, the trail of tears and the land run are two separate (albeit somewhat related) events. I don't think the land run monument purports to be an all encompassing statement of Oklahoma's history, and I'm not sure I agree with a line of thinking that everything has to be all inclusive. If someone had a monument to a gold strike that had a statue of a miner, does that also require a second statue since any gold rush in the US would have been on what once was native land. What about the public schoolhouse in Edmond? Can you celebrate the first schoolhouse in Oklahoma without having a second exhibit right next to it showing a native family being dragged to Oklahoma? To me, the two events (the trail of tears and the land runs) while both relating to the concept of westward expansion and native history, are still separate events (and decades apart). Contextually, a trail of tears monument alongside the land run monument doesn't even make sense, unless you're trying to build a "history of Oklahoma" monument.

I agree with the statements that native history is regularly silenced and ignored, and I think we should build more statues and monuments, and certainly we should do a better job educating on the more complex history of Oklahoma, and also be brutally honest with ourselves on our collective history. But I don't agree with inserting the trail of tears into every historical event of this state. Regardless of the events that happened in the years and decades leading up to it, the land run was a significant and historical event which absolutely defines much of Oklahoma to this day. I feel like a placard giving some context would be sufficient.

[Jersey Boss]

the land run lands were taken because of who those 2 tribes sided with in the civil war

But the guys who actually took up arms and killed members of the US Army were rewarded with statues and tributes. Frankly I am skeptical of your reasoning.

[PhiAlpha]

No, don't remove it, but along side it have an equally impressive set of sculptures showing the Native Americans trudging from their confiscated lands to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears. Show the dead they left along the way. While the land run participants were pioneering because they wanted to and were motivated to get free land, the Native Americans were forced to make a much longer journey because the land they already occupied was taken from them, and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

Just curious the name of the OK History textbook they studied from. Would like to read the accounts. Not doubting that your children are able to assuredly ascertain that they were given the whole and balanced truth of history based on their read and teacher's subsequent explanations, so I would like to see the truth as being told to our kids.

There is a much, much more impressive native american museum and 120+ acre complex going in not a mile from there that will tell the entire story from the Native American's perspective and there actually is a pretty nice native american monument further up the canal that goes into detail about the indian removal act and trail of tears so I don't really understand this line of thinking at all other than making an overly conscious effort to please everyone. Demanding that the city build another statue to offset this monument when there is one right down the canal and a massive museum complex going in nearby rings hollow and just screams virtue signalling. They have no good argument other than not liking the monument...which isn't a good reason to make any decision regarding it or building another one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Plaza#/

[PhiAlpha]

I'm sort of torn. At the end of the day, I gain no value from a land run monument, nor do I think I or anyone else is harmed in any way by removing it. I see it as just an impressive art installation as much as anything else, but if it needs to be modified or removed, then go for it. It affects me in no way period.

That being said, the trail of tears and the land run are two separate (albeit somewhat related) events. I don't think the land run monument purports to be an all encompassing statement of Oklahoma's history, and I'm not sure I agree with a line of thinking that everything has to be all inclusive. If someone had a monument to a gold strike that had a statue of a miner, does that also require a second statue since any gold rush in the US would have been on what once was native land. What about the public schoolhouse in Edmond? Can you celebrate the first schoolhouse in Oklahoma without having a second exhibit right next to it showing a native family being dragged to Oklahoma? To me, the two events (the trail of tears and the land runs) while both relating to the concept of westward expansion and native history, are still separate events (and decades apart). Contextually, a trail of tears monument alongside the land run monument doesn't even make sense, unless you're trying to build a "history of Oklahoma" monument.

I agree with the statements that native history is regularly silenced and ignored, and I think we should build more statues and monuments, and certainly we should do a better job educating on the more complex history of Oklahoma, and also be brutally honest with ourselves on our collective history. But I don't agree with inserting the trail of tears into every historical event of this state. Regardless of the events that happened in the years and decades leading up to it, the land run was a significant and historical event which absolutely defines much of Oklahoma to this day. I feel like a placard giving some context would be sufficient.

Agree with most of this especially the bold part.

[Rover]

the land run lands were taken because of who those 2 tribes sided with in the civil war

So, let me see... are you okay with then discrediting all the others who fought for the south? Or do you still defend the rebel flag, confederate soldier honoring, etc. Which is it? Everyone who fought for the south should have everything taken away? Guess we need to start taking away the lands of the south from the plantation owners, their families, etc. Reparations. Or does this just apply to the Native Americans?

[BoulderSooner]

So, let me see... are you okay with then discrediting all the others who fought for the south? Or do you still defend the rebel flag, confederate soldier honoring, etc. Which is it? Everyone who fought for the south should have everything taken away? Guess we need to start taking away the lands of the south from the plantation owners, their families, etc. Reparations. Or does this just apply to the Native Americans?

when have i ever defended the rebel flag ?? and if you can't see where these Sovereign nations losing this land (really being forced to sell it ) in a treaty is different then US citizen land owners in the south i don't know what to tell you

[Midtowner]

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

[Stew]

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

Nailed it.

[Rover]

when have i ever defended the rebel flag ?? and if you can't see where these Sovereign nations losing this land (really being forced to sell it ) in a treaty is different then US citizen land owners in the south i don't know what to tell you

Interesting twist of logic.

[mugofbeer]

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

^^^^^^

And, for the umpteenth time, an incredibly promising Native American Museum that is infinitely larger, should be highly funded, promoted and supported will open just down the river. With all the land available, an equally or more impressive diorama of Native American statues should be erected

[Rover]

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

[jerrywall]

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

By that argument we should tear down the Statue of Liberty and give New York back. I imagine celebrating immigration is really just celebrating native genocide to a lot of folks.

[BoulderSooner]

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand

[Swake]

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand

This isn't even accurate. The Creek tribe divided with half backing the north and half the south. All were punished, even Creeks that FOUGHT for the north.

[Rover]

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand

So, you are saying the southern land owners should have had their land taken too and been displaced?