Native American Perspective
From a traditional, American standpoint the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 is a fun and notable moment in Oklahoma and U.S. history. But for many Native Americans it is seen as another example of the United States government stealing land from Native Americans and giving it to white settlers.
Even though termed the Unassigned Lands, they were, of course, originally Native occupied and held lands. Arrell Gibson points out that "The Creeks and the Seminoles had what was called a 'residual interest' in the lands of western Oklahoma, especially the Unassigned Lands, which had been taken from them for the purpose of resettling tribes, and that the area had not been used for this treaty-designated purpose"(176). The government brokered a deal to purchase the land from the Indians, and then with the speed and fluency that can only implicate, or at least promote some due suspicion in, a government, congress passed the Indian Appropriation Bill with the Springer Amendment attached. The latter provided for the opening the Unassigned Lands.
There are ample enough examples of governmental theft of Indian land to quite literally span the entire U.S., but the Land Rush proves to be a special point of pain for Natives, because it is yearly celebrated by towns and school children across the state. In her article, "How We Mark the Anniversary of the Oklahoma Land Run," Holly Wall explores this idea that celebrating such an event is essentially picking a side in a two-sided debate without even acknowledging the existence of another side or perspective. "in 2007, the Society to Preserve the Indigenous Rights and Indigenous Traditions attempted to petition the state to ban re-enactment activities in public schools"(Wall 2). They did so asserting that “re-enacting the Land Run in public schools and in communities in Oklahoma is demeaning and humiliating to Oklahoma Indians”(2). Though the group made it clear that they did not want the teaching of the Land Run removed from curriculum, they simply want their side acknowledged.
Even though termed the Unassigned Lands, they were, of course, originally Native occupied and held lands. Arrell Gibson points out that "The Creeks and the Seminoles had what was called a 'residual interest' in the lands of western Oklahoma, especially the Unassigned Lands, which had been taken from them for the purpose of resettling tribes, and that the area had not been used for this treaty-designated purpose"(176). The government brokered a deal to purchase the land from the Indians, and then with the speed and fluency that can only implicate, or at least promote some due suspicion in, a government, congress passed the Indian Appropriation Bill with the Springer Amendment attached. The latter provided for the opening the Unassigned Lands.
There are ample enough examples of governmental theft of Indian land to quite literally span the entire U.S., but the Land Rush proves to be a special point of pain for Natives, because it is yearly celebrated by towns and school children across the state. In her article, "How We Mark the Anniversary of the Oklahoma Land Run," Holly Wall explores this idea that celebrating such an event is essentially picking a side in a two-sided debate without even acknowledging the existence of another side or perspective. "in 2007, the Society to Preserve the Indigenous Rights and Indigenous Traditions attempted to petition the state to ban re-enactment activities in public schools"(Wall 2). They did so asserting that “re-enacting the Land Run in public schools and in communities in Oklahoma is demeaning and humiliating to Oklahoma Indians”(2). Though the group made it clear that they did not want the teaching of the Land Run removed from curriculum, they simply want their side acknowledged.