Federal Land Ownership in 2010

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,088
2,250
Sin City
BG-federal-land-ownership-2010-map-1-825.gif-762x1024.png



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
 
Why did the state of Oklahoma promise the eastern part of Okiehoma to the Indians and then renege on the agreement?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lets start selling land to the States

Pay down the debt
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top