They really do control the west, don't they. Why? Why can that land not be released to state control? Read more @ Study Government s Control of Land Is Hurting Oil Production Job Growth
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
The states have a piss poor record also...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.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.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.
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.Indians have a long history of the same behavior. That's how the term "indian giver" was coined.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.
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.
The American (and before that British and French) government made promises that were never kept. Some are still not being kept to this day.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.
...aaaand the Indians never kept their word either, so just stop with the hypocrisy.The American (and before that British and French) government made promises that were never kept. Some are still not being kept to this day.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.