Federal Land Ownership in 2010

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,898
Reaction score
23,478
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Probably because of prior agreements with the feds that occurred during statehood negotiations...
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,898
Reaction score
23,478
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
 
OP
longknife

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,046
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
Because that's what the federal government has always done to American Indians.
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,641
Reaction score
6,347
Points
350
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
Because that's what the federal government has always done to American Indians.
Indians have a long history of the same behavior. That's how the term "indian giver" was coined.
 
OP
longknife

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,046
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
Because that's what the federal government has always done to American Indians.
Indians have a long history of the same behavior. That's how the term "indian giver" was coined.
There's also some truth behind this that was conveniently ignored in American history. The White Men, ignoring Indian traditions, tried to use their own standards when dealing with various tribes. They negotiated with the WRONG LEADERS!

Most tribes had two "chiefs". One for war and another for peace. Both were subject to the final approval of the Tribal Council.

Therefore, negotiating only with the war chiefs was like trying to negotiate a treaty with the Minister of War in European countries. It would mean nothing without the confirmation by the ruler or parliament.

Therefore, many so called "treaties" were revoked by the tribal councils that had the final word.

White Man's stupidity. Then and today.
 

ogibillm

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
14,029
Reaction score
1,618
Points
245
why should it be turned over to the states?
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,641
Reaction score
6,347
Points
350
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
Because that's what the federal government has always done to American Indians.
Indians have a long history of the same behavior. That's how the term "indian giver" was coined.
There's also some truth behind this that was conveniently ignored in American history. The White Men, ignoring Indian traditions, tried to use their own standards when dealing with various tribes. They negotiated with the WRONG LEADERS!

Most tribes had two "chiefs". One for war and another for peace. Both were subject to the final approval of the Tribal Council.

Therefore, negotiating only with the war chiefs was like trying to negotiate a treaty with the Minister of War in European countries. It would mean nothing without the confirmation by the ruler or parliament.

Therefore, many so called "treaties" were revoked by the tribal councils that had the final word.

White Man's stupidity. Then and today.
In other words, they were "indian givers". They would constantly renig on their agreements. Its fine if they want to do that, but i wont ignore the hypocracy of indians whining about bad deals.
 
OP
longknife

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,046
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
In other words, they were "indian givers". They would constantly renig on their agreements. Its fine if they want to do that, but i wont ignore the hypocracy of indians whining about bad deals.
The American (and before that British and French) government made promises that were never kept. Some are still not being kept to this day.
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,641
Reaction score
6,347
Points
350
In other words, they were "indian givers". They would constantly renig on their agreements. Its fine if they want to do that, but i wont ignore the hypocracy of indians whining about bad deals.
The American (and before that British and French) government made promises that were never kept. Some are still not being kept to this day.
...aaaand the Indians never kept their word either, so just stop with the hypocrisy.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,944
Reaction score
47,771
Points
2,190
Lets start selling land to the States

Pay down the debt
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top