OKCPS Banned Land Run

[Just the facts]

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

[Teo9969]

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.

[jerrywall]

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

[Edgar]

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.

[jerrywall]

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

[Edgar]

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!

[jerrywall]

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

[Jim Kyle]

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?

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[OKCisOK4me]

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...

[jn1780]

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...........

[turnpup]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[Swake]

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.

[ZYX2]

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?

[Midtowner]

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.

[ZYX2]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[ZYX2]

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.

[ZYX2]

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.

[Edgar]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[ZYX2]

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).